O X
F O
R
D
I B
S
T
U
D
Y
G
U
I D
E
S
Alexey Popov
Psychology
F O R
T H E
I B
D I P L O M A
2nd edition
The
3
Great
Clarendon
publisher
permission
Street,
Oxford,
OX2
6DP,
United
and
to
use
author
would
photographs
like
and
to
thank
other
the
following
copyright
for
material:
Kingdom
Cover:
Pasieka/Getty
Images;
p2:
Rice
University/CC
BY
4.0/http://
cnx.org/contents/14fb4ad7-39a1-4eee-ab6e-3ef2482e3e22@8.81;
Oxford
University
Press
is
a
department
of
the
University
of
Oxford.
p4:
It
furthers
the
University’s
objective
of
excellence
in
and
education
by
publishing
Reprinted
from
worldwide.
Oxford
is
P.,
Cynader,
M.
trade
mark
of
Oxford
University
Press
in
the
UK
and
other
cortical
Oxford
adult
University
Press
2018
moral
rights
of
the
authors
have
been
monkeys.
published
rights
in
2018
reserved.
No
Rhodes,
Nature
in
part
of
this
publication
may
be
a
Curtis,
retrieval
without
the
system,
prior
or
transmitted,
permission
in
or
as
expressly
permitted
by
law,
in
any
writing
of
form
or
Oxford
with
by
by
licence
or
the
appropriate
concerning
reprographics
reproduction
rights
outside
the
Val,
the
Royal
under
the
be
sent
address
must
impose
not
this
of
the
digit
(1984),
amputation
224:
591–605.
doi:
10.1002/
p10:
to
the
Rights
Department,
W.
Robin
Simmons,
M.
R.
Hare,
Marina
Soc.
Sophie
open
Schlatter,
Oxford
Published
Ltd/Alamy
Aunger,
8
March
sci.
2017
Stock
and
2017/CC
4
Photo;
Tamer
p24:
Rabie.
BY
160831;
4.0;
p22:
Reprinted
from
Risk
of
Disease.”
“Evidence
That
Proceedings
B:
Biological
Reprinted
Sciences
from
Journal
271.Suppl
of
Verbal
4
(2004):
Learning
11,
John
D.
Bransford
and
Marcia
K.
and
Johnson,
Prerequisites
University
for
Understanding:
Some
Investigations
of
above
and
Recall,
717-726,
1972,
with
permission
from
Press,
p45:
zmeel/iStockphoto;
p106:
Incomible/Shutterstock;
above.
circulate
same
this
work
condition
on
in
any
any
other
form
and
you
OAK
Library
Cataloguing
in
DelParigi,
acquirer
Publication
RIDGE
NATIONAL
ENERGY/SCIENCE
must
Kewei
PHOTO
Chen,
Sensory
LABORATORY/US
LIBRARY
Arline
D.
experience
;
p112:
Salbe,
of
food
Eric
and
DEPARTMENT
Reused
M.
from
Reiman,
obesity:
a
OF
Angelo
P.
Antonio
positron
Data
emission
Data
Neurol.,
p15:
Protect
Society
p34:
Behaviour,
Tataranni,
British
following
organization.
scope
p110:
You
Stryker,
M.
terms
Elsevier.;
at
changes
Ubiquitous/Shutterstock;
Robert
to
Comprehension
should
J.,
J.
any
Contextual
Enquiries
R.
Zook,
University
Verbal
agreed
Leigh
Evolved
S131–S133.;
Press,
and
reproduced,
of
means,
Comp.
Eye
Photographers
Disgust
stored
J.
p9:
10.1098/rsos.160831.
from
All
Nelson,
A.
asserted
DOI:
First
map
Pousheva/Shutterstock;
Gillian
The
M.,
countries
cne.902240408;
©
M.
Schoppmann,
in
in
certain
S.,
a
Somatosensory
registered
Merzenich,
research,
M.
scholarship,
tomography
study
of
the
brain
regions
affected
by
tasting
available
a
liquid
2,
meal
2005,
after
Pages
a
prolonged
436-443,
ISSN
fast,
NeuroImage,
1053-8119,
Volume
24,
Issue
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
978-0-19-839817-2
neuroimage.2004.08.035;
1
3
5
7
9
10
8
6
4
2
p126:
C
Paper
used
in
the
production
of
this
book
is
a
natural,
made
from
wood
grown
in
sustainable
Jones,
Lisa
M
manufacturing
process
conforms
to
the
of
the
country
of
R
DeBruine,
in
Great
Britain
by
Bell
and
Bain
Ltd.,
Glasgow.
BY)
Feinberg,
Society;
of
a
12
theory
,
of
permission
publishers
would
like
to
thank
the
following
for
permission
copyright
Anthony
by
R.
Soc.
B
Published
22
M.
and
Latané,
B.:
Table
1
from
‘Bystander
intervention
diffusion
of
responsibility’,
Journal
of
Personality
and
Psychology,
reprinted
p134:
©
Getty
(PLOS)
p164:
Issue
Vol.
with
8,
No.
4,
1968,
pp.
377-383,
published
of
from
Taylor
2
C.D.,
from
Call,
30
from
Josep
years
Elsevier.;
&
et
later
of
by
Burriss,
DOI:
2007/Copyright
©
10.1098/
2007
p154:
The
The
Public
Commons
Trends
al.,
in
Does
187
-
2017
Attribution
Cognitive
the
192,
The
(CC
Sciences,
chimpanzee
Copyright
Author(s).
have
2008,
with
Published
Fumihiro
Kano,
Christopher
with
Krupenye,
and
Josep
(
Creative
B.D.,
empathic
Personality
published
Commons
License);
Attribution-
p166:
Harlow,
Harry
F.
American
OUP;
p171:
Psychologist,
Vol
The
13(12),
Domain.
APA
Ackerman,
emotion
a
P.,
source
Buckley,
of
T.,
altruistic
and
Birch,
by
by
and
APA
Social
and
Psychology,
reprinted
Vol.
with
40,
Thomson
Digital.
K.:
we
have
made
every
effort
to
trace
and
contact
all
motivation?’
No.
2,
1981,
holders
before
publication
this
has
not
will
rectify
been
possible
pp.
in
290-302,
/
p165:
Francis©
673-685/Public
copyright
Journal
P
permission.
Duncan,
‘Is
love.
1958,
Although
Table
899-903;
Images/Stockbyte;
Creative
Reprinted
5,
mind?
Hirata,
Artwork
Batson,
274
and
Dec
Social
Robert
Minnesota;
Benedict
in
nature
emergency:
2007
March
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
J.
Little,
of
from
material:
Satoshi
Darley,
C
Reprinted
to
license
use
Proc.
Science
license.;
Volume
Acknowledgements
The
Eat/University
p133:
origin.
Library
Printed
Proejct
environmental
Royal
regulations
p122:
Region;
forests.
rspb.2006.0205.
The
Pacic
recyclable
David
product
WHO/West
all
cases.
If
notied,
the
publisher
any
errors
or
permission.
omissions
Links
and
the
this
to
for
at
the
third
earliest
party
information
materials
work.
opportunity.
websites
only.
contained
are
provided
Oxford
in
any
by
disclaims
third
party
Oxford
any
in
good
faith
responsibility
website
referenced
for
in
Introduction
How
to
use
“Essential
At
the
with
to
start
the
this
In
text
each
of
start
topic
you
arguments
“Essential
to
studies
make
with
a
it
short
Types
boxes
■
the
and
text
Dotted
line
factual
information.
■
Boxes
labelled
■
Boxes
labelled
such
■
Boxes
■
Finally,
The
Course
This
book
is
throughout
How
IB
is
that
an
both
of
to
how
that
supports
same
are
central
The
to
you
you.
it
tool
with
ask
consists
IB
is
is
you
supported
is
why
and
the
provides
read,
you
to
see
key
ow
of
arguments,
it
a
summary
might
ow
of
be
a
of
good
arguments
the
topic
idea
behind
to
refer
the
the
main
understanding”.
This
individual
paragraph
link s
boxes
back
to
throughout
the
the
shaded
topic .
of
boxes
of
a
and
whereas
theory
Method,
that
icons.
solid
has
specic
a
line
boxes
name
research
Procedure,
key
and
deep
the
and
study.
Results
and
contain
belongs
Where
details
to
of
research
particular
relevant ,
studies
or
other
authors.
studies
are
described
using
Conclusion.
information.
reading
with
understanding,
course.
about
of
Using
your
the
a
focus
you
are
Course
on
assessment .
encouraged
Companion
to
in
To
build
read
the
up
IB
conjunction
the
necessary
P s ychology
with
this
skills
C our se
book
will
responses.
understanding
many
used
research
that
matters
your
is
the
matters.
is
how
theoretical
much
higher
“Essential
the
studies
material
do
Even
well
you
the
with
value
to
applying
learn
research
have
understanding”
and
need
one
arguments
than
I
study
answered
research.
of
for
using
boxes
in
this
may
the
So
two
critical
this
be
value
three
book
but
enough
question
the
or
thinking
topic?”—
on
of
clearly
to
the
using
research
bring
to
it
it .
is
get
question
the
high
mark s
theoretical
one
the
that
for
level
research
studies
out
A
not
all
study
support
arguments
that
study.
assessment
Psychology
Subject
the
Study
is
a
Subject
Guide
is
very
brief
Guide”
the
Guide—the
covers
the
of
core
two
to
ofcial
book
learn
IB
you
overview
approaches
parts.
In
part
behaviour.
In
behaviour.
You
are
two
overarching
application
of
about
document
are
reading
the
structure
regulating
now).
assessment
in
IB
Your
of
the
test
papers
syllabus
teacher
will
of
and
IB
the
assessment
psychology
explain
all
the
(please
necessary
do
not
details
to
psychology.
of
part
behaviour—biological,
you
B
will
topics:
research
to
A
will
you
will
need
research
methods
or
be
to
asked
be
given
choose
and
ethical
three
three
one
ethics.
cognitive
of
This
and
mandatory
ERQs
these
means
considerations
to
a
sociocultural
SAQs
(extended
(short
(Units
answer
response
1
–3
of
this
questions),
questions),
book).
one
again,
The
from
one
from
questions.
that
you
can
particular
always
be
asked
questions
concerning
topic .
2
2
cover s
the
op t io n s—Ab nor mal
Developmental
psych o lo gy
study
only
For
SAQs
in
one.
paper
ea c h
(Units
o ption
p sych o lo gy,
4–7
you
of
will
this
be
Health
book).
given
HL
t hree
ps ych o lo gy,
stud en t s
E RQs ,
Ps yc h o lo gy
stud y
a nd
you
two
will
of
of
these
need
to
huma n
relatio ns hips
o ptio ns
c ho o s e
a nd
SL
a nd
s tuden ts
o ne .
There
and
asked
a re
no
2.
overarching
topics
(research
and
ethics)
are
applicable
to
this
paper
too.
3
3
is
questions
a
details
research
to
the
specic
What
to
from
a
have
approach
Paper
a
“How
approach
Paper
of
material,
structure
each
The
the
types
revision
for
the
each
Paper
It
you
1
paper
Paper
of
highlight
for
arguments
This
below
1
the
box.
As
self-explanatory.
to
develop
and
theory
of
“IB
The
Paper
There
allow
topic .
Guide
the
However,
Paper
several
are
question.
have
every
requirements.
a
studies
multiple
Subject
confuse
track
“Essential
start
contain
used
learning.
argument .
see
will
that
study
rote
structure
Please
the
contain
textbook
frequently
well
the
keep
theoretical
tip”
and
depth
response
and
to
Participants,
is
as
main
research
extended
The
icon
course
the
about
students
number
This
understanding”
within
Companion
the
much
not
Aim,
intended
C ompanion —the
enhance
boxes
frequently.
labelled
nd
contain
“Exam
star
you
at
“Research”
as
labelled
the
will
“ Theory ”
elements
“Essential
other
icons
you
boxes
shaded
the
theories.
for
box
a
to
box
paragraph
understanding”
of
nd
link s
and
easier
“Essential
Throughout
will
and
understanding”
separate
addition,
book
understanding”
of
main
specics
this
list
for
HL
students
regarding
of
concrete
static
it .
only.
The
questions
research
In
study
study.
this
may
and
paper
be
require
Material
you
will
qualitative,
the
relevant
be
given
application
for
a
description
quantitative
paper
3
or
of
your
is
directly
a
of
a
research
combination
knowledge
covered
of
in
of
research
Units
8
study
both.
The
questions
methodology
and
9
of
this
and
book.
a
series
are
of
taken
ethics
to
Contents
1
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
2
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
3
Sociocultural
4
Abnormal
5
Health
6
Human
7
Developmental
8
Research
methods
9
Ethics
psychological
approach
to
behaviour
psychology
29
56
80
psychology
105
relationships
in
1
129
psychology
in
psychology
research
Index
155
183
198
201
T he
bibliography
c an
be
found
at :
w w w.ox fordsecondar y.com/9780198398172
1
BIOLOGICAL
APPROACH
TO
B E H AV I O U R
T
opics
1.1
Brain
and
behaviour
1.3
Genetics
1.3.1
Genes
1.1.2
Neuroplasticity
1.3.2
Evolutionary
1.1.3
Neurotransmitters
1.1.4
T
echniques
used
and
to
to
the
brain
Hormones
and
The
inuence
of
hormones
1.2.2
The
inuence
of
pheromones
pheromones
Brain
1.1.1
SNOITINIFED
the
in
Strict
and
brain
of
are
and
function—the
The
role
localization—the
for
idea
brain
that
areas,
the
into
conclusive.
the
theory
certain
that
certain
areas
Weak
psychological
be
and
all
that
there
psychological
functions
can
is
a
clear
functions
be
clearly
not
been
localization—the
responsible
areas
Widely
and
be
do
that
of
believe
strict
function
now
that
localization
localization
research
studies
were
The
is
has
functions
has
been
are
entirely
localized,
gradually
replaced
brain.
who
One
to
based
on
functions
such
claimed
rather
earliest
support
patients
localization
documented
See
than
the
idea
of
“Broca’s
inspired
maps”.
(1891–1976),
his
with
specic
One
who
cortical
phenomena
that
are
Broca’
s
aphasia
attempts
and
such
used
to
attempt
the
aphasia
and
homunculus
to
strict
however
,
localization
and
research
even
of
to
neural
rst
brains
these
case
of
studies
appeared
localized
in
Wernicke’s
AND
studies
patients
inspired
that
the
Broca’s
used
with
Wilder
that
See
be
localized
research
of
a
Karl
by
maze
anywhere
Karl
in
Lashley
rats
in
Lashley
was
the
(1929)
distributed
(1929)
localization
the
same
one
of
Boldrey
recognizes
idea
function
these
Peneld
1937).
the
to
See
is
split
brain
Gazzaniga
that
the
concept
several
(and
areas
idea
is
is
brain
can
of
weak
areas
potentially
dominant.
that
language
weakly
research
(1967).
are
take
responsible
over),
An
example
of
but
research
conducted
See
(both
localized
Sperry
by
in
production
the
left
Sperry
(1968)
(1968)
and
and
hemisphere
and
Gazzaniga
(1967)
be
at
a
Broca
idea
and
the
belief
post-mortem
unique
the
opposed
speech
of
of
strict
that
See
retained
all
lost
other
psychological
functions,
functions
are
it
relatively
documented
the
ability
functions
to
examination
of
Results
localization.
speech
comprehension
the
case
speak
such
as
or
“Relative
localization
of
function”.
APHASIA
is
in
comprehension.
and
tried
could
of
to
make
When
T
an
study
write
of
He
understood
communicate
was
articulated
discovered
(1861)
of
psychological
some
area.
who
variety
that
idea
disorders.
articulate
speech
the
the
syllable
speech,
died,
an
that
his
in
the
back,
autopsy
but
“tan”.
became
brain
everything
posterior
This
known
was
had
the
a
as
Broca’
s
specic
inferior
to
him
sound
condition,
performed
very
said
only
frontal
and
he
the
loss
aphasia.
it
was
lesion
in
gyrus.
This
the
left
brain
“T
an”,
region
patient
larger
claimed
hemisphere,
a
is
memory
localized.
comprehension)
stimulation
WERNICKE’S
production
area,
that
rejected
understanding
Paul
may
localization
been
Essential
It
cannot
aphasia”
comprehensive
belonged
(Peneld,
APHASIA
of
that
brain
Wernicke’
s
Wernicke’s
create
method
BROCA’S
the
function
were
localized.
has,
The
the
may
and
Peneld
Contrary
✪
in
area
brain
can
strict
the
functions—functions
example
approach
Looking
of
over
brain
exclusively
,
strict
supporting
research
Wilder
take
one
not
relative.
only
aphasia.
also
that
but
mapped
for
thoroughly
idea
function,
anywhere
localization—the
damage.
a
distributed
psychological
localization
of
belief
localization
for
may
localized
T
oday’
s
There
understanding
behaviour
Relative
create
in
only)
UNDERSTANDING
We
idea
rst
“brain
research
(HL
behaviour
on
localization
Research
This
animal
brain
ESSENTIAL
The
of
behaviour
behaviour
on
other
between
the
similarities
behaviour
behaviour
responsible
correspondence
onto
by
for
relation
functions
Strict
genetic
explanations
Localization
Localization
of
behaviour
,
behaviour
1.2.1
1.1
and
behaviour
study
human
but
behaviour
Localization
1.4
1.2
and
1.1.1
is
now
known
as
Broca’
s
area.
but
intelligence
and
speech
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
1
Shorty
case
after
that
studies
comprehension
area
is
located
hemisphere
have
an
Carl
of
in
the
(usually
speech
the
written
is
of
(1874)
brain
and
temporal
the
impairment
articulate
Wernicke
discovered
left).
area
Wernicke’s
similar
spoken
language.
lobe
the
of
People
speech
in
responsible
with
area
for
Wernicke’
s
dominant
Wernicke’
s
comprehension,
but
aphasia
their
intact.
Broca’s area
Figure
WILDER
PENFIELD—MAPPING
Essential
culminated
Wilder
he
to
in
this
the
he
used
patient
homunculus,
various
a
the
of
the
method
of
the
MOTOR
CORTEX
and
that
cortex
shows
body
in
of
of
neural
and
and
the
have
stimulation—
with
observed
the
function
maps.
cortex
sensations
whole
the
localization
cortical
awake
on
map
parts
of
parts
was
had
covered
strict
creation
various
stimulation
little
of
establish
the
Peneld
stimulated
while
AND
understanding
Attempts
✪
SENSORY
1.1
electrodes
the
effects
behaviour
.
created
relative
cortex
Little
the
by
cortical
representation
(Peneld,
Boldrey
1937).
Figure
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Karl
memory
is
with
in
controlled
induced
trained
the
to
induced
widely
anywhere
were
psychological
understanding
Experiments
that
Lashley—some
Karl
brain
run
damage
rather
Lashley
damage
through
a
are
Cortical
distributed
homunculus
rather
than
localized
Results
brain
distributed
cortex.
functions
1.2
in
in
than
(1929)
the
rats
showed
localized
used
cortex
of
Results
carefully
rats
of
these
hypotheses
The
that
and
not
led
principle
depended
maze.
experiments
on
on
the
him
of
the
to
did
not
mass
action.
percentage
location
Equipotentiality
.
of
The
support
formulate
the
the
Memory
of
Lashley’
s
following
cortex
of
the
original
ideas.
maze
destroyed,
but
lesion.
idea
that
one
part
of
the
cortex
Procedure
can
In
a
typical
study
,
he
trained
a
rat
to
go
through
a
take
its
mistakes
cortex
and
in
search
observed
memory
of
the
different
trials.
maze.
of
what
He
food,
effect
removed
then
this
removed
would
10–50%
of
a
have
the
part
on
cortex
1—Biological
Based
is
approach
to
of
another
part
of
the
cortex
behaviour
necessary
.
Conclusion
on
not
take
Unit
functions
of
its
on
these
localized;
whole.
2
the
maze
when
without
over
Even
over
if
the
observations
it
is
one
widely
Lashley
concluded
distributed
part
of
the
cortex
functions
of
the
missing
across
is
lost,
part.
that
the
memory
cortex
other
parts
as
a
may
RESEARCH
Essential
As
✪
and
Sperry
(1968)
and
Gazzaniga
(1967)—research
hemisphere
understanding
demonstrated
comprehension
(lateralized)
in
the
by
of
left
split
brain
language
research,
are
both
weakly
hand
production
left
localized
–
investigate
how
independently
the
when
two
the
what
hemispheres
connection
function
between
they
When
a
right
the
is
severed.
right
the
to
the
while
was
able
language
were
is
not
to
tell
the
localized
able
to
left
in
the
explain
why
.
word
(such
hemisphere,
the
patients
and
since
participants
previous
is
as
“pencil”)
participants
curtain
hemisphere
Perhaps
object
but
and
simple
behind
contrary
split-brain
do,
did
to
reach
them
saw
to
hemisphere,
what
hemisphere.
Aim
T
o
with
and
pick
nding
able
to
language
a
production
may
to
This
shows
some
ashed
able
pencil.
and
process
was
were
goes
that
the
simple
be
speech.
conned
Participants
to
Four
patients
who
underwent
novel
treatment
for
the
be
that
involved
surgically
cutting
the
corpus
left
hemisphere,
language
comprehension
may
epilepsy
a
function
of
both.
This
shows
weak
localization
of
callosum.
language
–
When
comprehension.
researchers
placed
four
plastic
letters
in
a
pile
Method
This
was
an
in-depth
case
study
of
four
unique
technique
stimuli
to
used
front
of
Stimuli
was
either
They
a
the
the
word”,
one
his
Procedure
A
behind
used
the
table
left
with
board,
were
that
then
or
a
allowed
the
xing
their
ashed
on
researchers
right
board
on
eye
it.
eyes
the
the
to
the
right
dot
or
in
the
and
asked
in
in
the
centre.
left
participant
hand.
spelled.
some
He
This
was
in
was
not
shows
rudimentary
hemisphere
sat
far
left
just
project
participant.
Participants
on
far
of
curtain
participants
to
“spell
a
individuals.
some
able
able
that
form,
but
to
all
spell
name
even
may
not
to
“love”
the
word
language
be
present
with
he
production,
in
the
right
of
language
people.
of
P
E
the
board
for
one-tenth
of
a
second.
N
C
L
The
are
idea
was
that
connected
versa,
the
some
behind
feel
optic
brain
nerves
to
could
the
from
left
present
the
right
hemisphere
stimuli
to
eye
and
one
of
vice
the
only
.
trials
it.
the
our
researchers
hemispheres
For
in
since
the
table
Participants
objects
with
also
could
their
had
a
reach
curtain
behind
with
the
some
curtain
objects
and
hands.
Figure
1.3
Visual
test
for
split
brain
patients
Results
Multiple
results
mention
some
localization
–
When
visual
of
a
were
of
a
in
these
illustrate
spoon
(connected
participants
nothing.
that
studies;
the
idea
we
of
will
only
relative
function.
picture
eld
obtained
examples
were
to
asked
However
,
to
when
was
the
shown
right
describe
asked
to
to
the
left
hemisphere)
the
pick
object,
an
These
results
is
strict.
not
they
but
said
the
curtain,
they
could
feel
around
and
pick
a
with
their
left
hand
(because
it
is
connected
hemisphere).
picked
the
Participants
spoon.
This
could
result
not
explain
supports
the
to
Split
division
is
localized
in
the
left
localization
localized
can
also
in
and
the
perform
language
left
hemisphere,
some
simple
brain
of
studies
are
functions
studies
between
of
the
lateralization—
left
and
the
right
the
Lateralization
is
a
special
case
of
localization,
why
idea
if
you
hemisphere—the
explicitly
acknowledge
this,
you
can
use
that
Sperry's
language
mostly
that
production
but
and
they
are
hemisphere
hemisphere.
right
idea
behind
spoon
the
only
right
the
language
tasks.
Note:
the
support
Both
comprehension
and
object
Conclusion
and
Gazzaniga’
s
research
in
answers
to
exam
right
questions.
RELATIVE
Essential
✪
LOCALIZATION
OF
FUNCTION
understanding
Localization
of
function
is
but
relative.
split
–
The
of
accumulated
function
in
the
body
of
human
evidence
brain
is
suggests
relative.
that
This
one
of
brain
these
Some
components
while
other
localization
includes
the
following
idea
Some
functions
Broca’
s
are
indeed
aphasia
and
strictly
localized.
Wernicke’
s
Some
Refer
–
Some
functions
to
Karl
brain
as
Lashley’
s
functions
several
such
are
areas
memory
research
weakly
are
are
for
responsible
widely
an
localized
illustrated
by
function
components
of
the
may
same
be
localized
For
speech
function
example,
production
may
seems
be
to
localized
than
speech
be
comprehension.
Examples
Localization
is
not
static:
brain
areas
can
respecialize
due
neuroplasticity
.
distributed.
example.
rather
for
is
aphasia.
to
–
a
This
aspects.
–
include
of
dominant.
example.
of
more
–
is
for
localization
distributed.
relative
areas
research,
the
than
same
strictly—
function,
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
3
1.1.2
Neuroplasticity
SNOITINIFED
Cortical
the
remapping—neuroplasticity
the
level
of
Neuroplasticity—the
in
Hippocampus—a
be
on
cortex
implicated
in
part
of
the
emotional
limbic
system,
regulation
and
known
to
Synaptic
long-term
level
memory
making
It
plasticity
to
The
ability
a
is
and
the
ability
breaking
occurs
on
cortical
of
the
of
of
the
brain
synaptic
different
to
change
connections
scales,
from
through
Apart
between
synaptic
remapping.
brain
demonstrated
in
study
that
showed
adult
See
owl
a
to
study
remap
by
cortical
monkeys
Merzenich
its
functions
has
from
et
change
in
the
et
Merzenich
remapping
around
al
RESEARCH
The
two
et
of
al
(1984).
the
months
after
occurs
routine
such
Maguire
amputation.
natural
neuron,
to
change
occurring
construction
elimination
et
al
cortex
has
ability
to
(1984)—cortical
remap
the
of
as
of
the
adapting
biological
(2004)
brain
its
et
et
al
in
ones
of
on
new
that
showed
to
are
damage
mechanism
that
response
practising
al
itself
the
synaptic
not
used
to
there
a
juggling
of
was
simple
or
injury,
lear ning.
a
structural
lear ning
periodically.
See
(2004)
job.
remapping
functions
4
(2000)
and
looked
in
the
See
of
spread
responsible
changes
Maguire
and
human
in
hippocampus
digits
for
at
demonstrated
signicant
matter
the
and
the
function
is
al
setting
experience
understanding
an
brain
The
ngers
(1984).
Merzenich
sensory
following
the
demands
been
of
✪
and
the
Draganski
grey
Essential
of
plasticity—neuroplasticity
separate
neuroplasticity
Draganski
in
ability
environmental
UNDERSTANDING
Neuroplasticity
neurons.
of
to
connections
ESSENTIAL
the
response
in
et
al
owl
the
in
neuroplasticity
London
relative
response
taxi
in
a
drivers
distribution
to
the
of
demands
(2000)
monkeys
“consumed”
digit
that
the
cortical
area
previously
3.
injury
.
Conclusion
The
Aim
T
o
investigate
hand
will
how
respond
the
to
sensory
cortex
responsible
for
sensory
cortical
the
cortex
of
adult
owl
monkeys
adapts
to
injury
remapping.
injury
.
2
Participants
Eight
adult
owl
monkeys.
Receptive fields in
original “D
3
territory”
Method
Experiment;
repeated
measures
design.
Procedure
Sensory
inputs
mapped
to
the
in
part
sensations
of
the
cortex
the
was
the
T
o
hand
do
known
hand,
noted
digits
this,
then
which
(ngers)
electrodes
to
be
attached
responsible
different
of
were
were
the
ngers
for
were
electrodes
respond
to
stimulation.
One
A
It
all
cortex.
from
stimulated.
the
from
the
or
several
remapping
how
the
digits
was
cortex
on
done
the
62
adapted
monkey’
s
days
to
the
after
hand
the
were
amputated.
amputation
to
see
injury
.
Digit 2
Original digit 3
Results
The
in
rst
the
mapping
cortex,
showed
each
that
responsible
there
for
were
one
ve
digit.
distinct
Adjacent
areas
represention
ngers
Digit 4
were
represented
Post
amputation,
was
occupied
digit
3
had
by
been
by
adjacent
the
now
adjacent
areas
unused
intact
amputated,
in
the
area
of
ngers.
the
cortical
cortex.
the
For
sensory
example,
areas
for
cortex
1.0 mm
if
digits
2
Figure
4
Unit
1—Biological
approach
to
behaviour
1.4
Cortical
remapping
after
digit
amputation
by
RESEARCH
Essential
Draganski
✪
basis
of
al
(2004)—structural
understanding
Neuroplasticity
practices,
et
which
occurs
in
suggests
changes
in
the
brain
in
response
to
juggling
Results
response
that
to
regular
neuroplasticity
is
learning
the
There
neural
were
jugglers
no
and
differences
non-jugglers
in
brain
before
structure
the
between
experiment.
learning.
After
three
more
grey
months
matter
of
in
practice,
the
the
jugglers
mid-temporal
area
had
of
signicantly
the
cortex
in
Aim
both
T
o
investigate
whether
structural
changes
in
the
brain
in
response
to
practising
a
simple
juggling
These
areas
are
known
to
be
responsible
would
for
occur
hemispheres.
coordination
of
movement.
routine.
After
six
months
(that
is,
three
months
of
non-practice)
Participants
the
A
self-selected
sample
of
volunteers
with
no
prior
differences
However,
the
jugglers
still
had
experience
more
of
decreased.
grey
matter
in
these
areas
than
at
the
rst
brain
juggling.
scan.
Method
Conclusion
Experiment;
mixed
design.
Grey
matter
demands
grows
in
(learning)
the
and
brain
in
shrinks
response
in
the
to
environmental
absence
of
stimulation
Procedure
(lack
The
sample
was
randomly
divided
into
two
of
practice).
and
lear ning
a
by
months
three
non-jugglers.
classic
practising.
juggling
in
which
Participants
in
Jugglers
routine
they
the
spent
with
were
three
three
that
there
is
cause-and-effect
group
between
learning
and
brain
structure.
months
balls
instructed
control
shows
groups:
relationship
jugglers
This
to
never
followed
Brain scans
stop
0 months
3 months
6 months
practised
Practising
Not practising
juggling.
Jugglers
Three
brain
before
one
the
after
scans
start
six
(MRI)
of
the
were
performed
experiment,
one
in
both
after
groups:
three
one
months,
Sample
months.
Not practising
Not practising
Non-jugglers
Figure
RESEARCH
Essential
Maguire
of
grey
as
a
al
(2000)—neuroplasticity
understanding
Neuroplasticity
✪
et
matter
in
occurs
the
in
1.5
in
London
of
hippocampus
their
driving
drivers
Procedure
natural
settings.
is
Redistribution
observed
in
taxi
MRI
scans
were
compared
between
drivers
and
non-drivers.
drivers
Researchers
function
taxi
also
correlated
the
number
of
years
of
taxi
experience.
driving
experience
with
results
of
the
MRI
scans.
Aim
Results
To
investigate
how
the
brain
structure
of
London
taxi
T
axi
drivers
is
different
from
the
average
drivers
had
increased
grey
matter
volume
in
the
brain.
posterior
hippocampus,
subjects.
On
the
other
compared
hand,
to
control
the
control
subjects
group
had
increased
Participants
grey
16
a
right-handed
taxi
driver
was
male
14.3
taxi
drivers.
The
average
experience
control
group:
50
healthy
A
right-handed
male
subjects
volume
correlation
taxi
was
driving
not
drive
a
Quasi-experiment
(comparison
study
correlated
observed
experience
the
in
the
part
of
two
where
pre-existing
driving
volume
of
hippocampus.
between
and
grey
the
number
matter
of
volume
years
in
longer
they
drove
a
taxi,
the
the
larger
with
grey
matter
volume.
their
posterior
true
for
anterior
This
means
hippocampus.
The
opposite
the
was
hippocampus.
groups);
that
redistribution
of
grey
matter
drivers,
from
the
occurred
in
experience
the
was
anterior
taxi.
Method
correlational
the
who
hippocampus:
did
in
as
years.
of
A
matter
MRI
was
used
hippocampus
of
taxi
anterior
to
the
to
posterior
.
measure
the
variables.
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
5
Time as taxi driver (months)
Conclusion
0
drivers
The
posterior
previously
in
matter
response
to
learned
is
spatial
known
in
the
gaining
hippocampus
hippocampus
spatial
grey
is
hippocampus
navigational
known
to
information,
to
be
be
the
for
in
experience.
involved
while
responsible
occurs
in
using
anterior
learning
new
information.
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
6
supmacoppih roiretsop
taxi
of
sesnopser MBV detsujdA
Redistribution
50
4
2
0
–2
–4
–6
VBM = voxel-based morphometry: a brain imaging analysis technique
Figure
1.6
Hippocampal
volume
and
amount
of
time
as
a
taxi
driver
1.1.3
Neurotransmitters
SNOITINIFED
Agonist—a
chemical
that
enhances
the
and
action
behaviour
of
a
Selective
neurotransmitter
class
of
excess
Antagonist—a
chemical
that
inhibits
the
action
of
serotonin
chemicals
serotonin
reuptake
that
in
the
act
by
inhibitors
preventing
synapse,
hence
(SSRIs)—a
reuptake
increasing
of
its
a
concentration
in
the
synaptic
gap
neurotransmitter
Neurotransmitter—a
chemical
axon
the
and
released
into
ESSENTIAL
UNDERSTANDING
The
information
nature
system
the
is
of
both
process
system
is
electrical
enabled
chemical.
stored
in
the
gap
transmission
and
by
messenger
synaptic
in
the
The
nervous
chemical
neurotransmitters.
See
part
Freed
of
“Nervous
processes”
et
al
with
affects
a
wide
range
of
severe
et
al
(2010)
demonstrated
the
effect
of
prosocial
behaviour.
They
found
that
serotonin
idea
of
behaviour
justify
cause
inicting
and
Essential
on
making
aggression.
NERVOUS
people
harm
See
it
to
be
more
someone,
increased
less
likely
Crockett
SYSTEM
for
et
opposed
to
promoting
al
Aron
be
of
into
role
that
the
See
Freed
and
(2005)
dopamine
putamen
Parkinson’
s
symptoms.
of
could
et
al
of
The
lead
to
a
Brown
implicated
in
feelings
demonstrated
of
romantic
and
Brown
that
love.
dopamine
See
information
the
prosocial
participants
to
(2010)
We
need
the
effect
to
See
“Limitations
of
be
aware
one
that
research
neurotransmitter
in
which
is
attempts
inevitably
neurotransmitter
is
chemical
in
the
nervous
Cell
system
are
both
chemical
gap.
and
They
and
messengers
are
affected
electrical.
that
by
a
are
released
variety
of
body
Neurotransmitters
in
the
chemicals:
synaptic
agonists
antagonists.
Axon
Neurons
The
nervous
consists
Where
system
is
a
of
three
parts:
the
axon
of
system
the
one
of
body,
neuron
neurons.
dendrites
A
neuron
and
approaches
the
axon.
Dendrites
another
Figure
neuron,
6
Unit
a
synapse
is
formed.
1—Biological
approach
to
behaviour
1.7
A
neuron
to
isolate
oversimplied.
research”
Synaptic
transmission
Fisher
,
(2005)
understanding
of
28%
(2001)
PROCESSES
nature
of
patients
terminals
✪
in
transplantation
levels
Aron
of
cells
symptoms
in
the
showed
serotonin
may
on
They
behaviours.
Fisher
,
Crockett
investigated
disease.
dopamine-producing
reduction
Neurotransmission
(2001)
Parkinson’
s
Information
The
nature
system
is
impulse
of
partly
builds
When
transmission
information
electrical
up
at
the
transmission
and
partly
synapse
in
chemical.
and
travels
the
nervous
the
An
building
the
electrical
across
next
neurotransmitter
neuron’
s
up
and
its
axon,
passing
the
excitation
on
to
binds
to
potential
a
receptor
,
and
this
contributes
changes
to
impulse.
the
Agonists
neuron
the
electric
the
and
antagonists
next
Neurotransmitters
themselves
are
affected
by
certain
synapse.
At
the
the
synapse
electrical
the
mechanism
impulse
reaches
becomes
the
end
chemical.
of
the
chemicals:
agonists
enhancing
the
is
released
into
the
axon,
synaptic
gap.
be
pulled
can
back
action
widely
is
called
of
end
of
receptors
the
axon
that
obviously
also
synaptic
the
released
gap
surface
Crockett
it
(this
For
antidepressants
example,
are
SSRIs
some
of
(selective
reuptake
inhibitors).
They
act
as
agonists
for
the
process
et
and
bind
next
itself
of
the
al
(2010)—the
to
serotonin;
they
inhibit
its
reuptake
thus
biologically
behaviours
prosocial
that
affect
based
seem
only
(such
to
be
as
the
behaviours
mood
result
or
of
concentration
in
the
synapse.
neuron.
effect
of
serotonin
In
not
its
one
understanding
Neurotransmitters
✪
as
the
on
RESEARCH
Essential
by
antagonists
reuptake)
the
the
act
and
then:
into
increasing
reach
neurotransmitters
neurotransmitters.
used
neurotransmitter
–
of
a
serotonin
–
Agonists
This
the
neurotransmitter
antagonists.
When
counteract
neurotransmitter
and
that
fatigue),
free
will,
both
person
are
but
killing
on
these
or
is
a
prosocial
scenarios
letting
more
ve
the
choice
people
direct
and
behaviour
die,
is
but
between
in
emotionally
the
killing
personal
aversive
one
scenario
act.
such
acts.
Aim
T
o
investigate
the
effect
of
serotonin
on
prosocial
behaviour
.
Participants
30
healthy
volunteers.
Method
Experiment;
repeated
counterbalanced.
The
measures
study
design.
was
The
design
was
double-blind.
Figure
Procedure
In
condition
(an
SSRI).
In
1
participants
condition
2
were
they
given
were
a
dose
given
a
of
were
given
moral
dilemmas
based
The
on
the
problem”:
there
is
a
runaway
trolley
the
moving
impersonal
tracks
and
you
see
that
it
is
about
to
hit
and
kill
you
have
a
choice
between
doing
nothing
scenario
citalopram.
participants’
In
the
responses
personal
were
scenario
participants
less
likely
to
interfere
(that
is,
citalopram
less
likely
to
ve
push
people;
by
along
made
the
problem
classic
unaffected
“trolley
trolley
Results
placebo.
In
Participants
1.8
citalopram
the
man
off
the
bridge).
and
interfering.
Conclusion
In
impersonal
scenarios
interfering
implied
pulling
a
Citalopram
lever
that
diverts
the
trolley
onto
another
track
where
this
kills
one
sense
personal
scenarios
interfering
implied
pushing
a
the
trolley
the
acceptability
prosocial
of
personal
behaviour
.
harm
Increased
and
levels
in
of
tracks,
and
so
that
prevent
it
the
man’
s
from
body
hitting
the
will
slow
ve
workers.
down
in
the
brain
may
cause
people
to
be
more
opposed
man
to
on
promotes
person.
serotonin
In
reduces
it
the
idea
of
inicting
harm
on
someone.
the
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
7
RESEARCH
Essential
et
al
(2001)—the
role
of
dopamine
The
understanding
Dopamine
✪
Freed
Parkinson’s
at
least
disease,
partially
especially
affects
in
symptoms
younger
Parkinson’s
control
drilled
of
in
in
group
the
disease
underwent
skull
but
the
sham
tissue
surgery:
was
not
holes
were
transplanted.
patients.
All
patients
made
to
were
followed
estimate
for
changes
in
one
the
year
.
brain;
PET
scans
clinical
were
observations
Aim
and
T
o
investigate
symptoms
of
the
effects
of
Parkinson’
s
dopamine
on
the
interviews
were
used
to
register
changes
in
symptoms.
behavioural
disease.
Results
PET
scans
revealed
signicant
growth
of
dopamine-
Participants
40
patients
duration
with
of
the
severe
Parkinson’
s
disease
was
14
disease.
years
and
The
ages
producing
cells
transplant
group.
34
to
75
the
putamen
of
participants
in
the
mean
Patients
in
the
transplant
group
ranged
demonstrated
from
in
a
reduction
of
Parkinson’
s
symptoms
by
28%,
years.
but
only
in
the
relatively
younger
group
(below
60).
Method
Conclusion
Experiment;
independent
measures
design.
T
ransplantation
putamen
Procedure
In
the
experimental
group
dopamine-producing
embryos
holes
and
were
transplanted
drilled
transplanted
through
through
RESEARCH
Essential
romantic
long
cells
were
the
the
skull
disease
containing
taken
into
from
patient’
s
and
aborted
putamen.
the
tissue
Four
dopamine-producing
leads
to
patients.
an
with
shows
Aron
and
Brown
may
be
the
biological
basis
of
and
–
viewing
–
ller
–
Aim
a
romantic
photograph
activity—40
viewing
–
neural
mechanisms
of
romantic
ller
a
who
were
of
the
but
not
dopamine
on
“intensely
in
love”
activity—20
love
of
the
person
they
love—30
seconds
seconds
photograph
responses
picture
Participants
participants
younger
inuence
in
Parkinson’
s
of
an
emotionally
neutral
seconds
seconds.
love.
Brain
17
in
of
behaviour
.
(2005)—dopamine
love.
investigate
the
neurons
symptoms
improvement
This
acquaintance—30
T
o
severe
was
understanding
activity
older
of
patients
needles.
Fisher,
Dopaminergic
✪
nerve
neurons
of
with
of
a
to
the
neutral
picture
of
a
acquaintance
loved
were
one
and
to
the
compared.
someone,
Results
mean
age
21
and
mean
duration
of
being
in
love
7
months.
There
Experiment;
measured
was
response
Method
repeated
in
fMRI
measures
design.
Variables
was
were
a
to
specic
the
especially
pattern
of
photographs
prominent
in
activation
of
the
in
loved
the
brain
ones.
dopamine-rich
in
Activation
brain
areas.
scans.
Conclusion
Dopaminergic
Procedure
Participants
the
were
following
four
LIMITATIONS
Essential
✪
steps,
OF
that
neurotransmitter
to
in
a
fMRI
which
scanner
were
and
repeated
went
six
NEUROTRANSMITTER
attempts
is
important
Neurotransmission
to
inevitably
the
effect
oversimplied.
a
of
one
However
,
Z?
it
–
process.
There
are
100
known
neurotransmitters,
and
each
of
effects
synaptic
gap
on
behaviour
.
Neurotransmitters
but
The
in
effect
affected
When
the
8
it
level
Unit
by
agonists
comes
of
each
one
to
other
and
on
top
however
,
we
neurotransmitter
1—Biological
of
in
feelings
(Z).
Can
we
of
romantic
for
following
them
in
the
that,
are
approach
to
typically
(X)
love.
be
indirect.
For
Z.
may
that
example,
neurotransmitter
The
say
X
inuences
limitations.
Y
,
and
it
X
acts
is
Y
as
that
effect
be
postponed.
For
example,
X
triggers
has
long-lasting
–
X
may
–
X
is
process
ultimately
not
be
the
of
change
resulting
only
factor
in
in
interconnected
Z.
affecting
Z.
antagonists.
research,
isolated
and,
the
may
agonist
variables,
affect
behaviour
with
inuences
a
multiple
role
more
–
than
changes
Y
es,
an
complex
a
RESEARCH
insights.
is
plays
times:
the
isolate
activity
through
understanding
Research
leads
placed
and
increase
observe
behaviour
we
never
the
increase
side
effects.
only
the
factor
level
of
that
X,
changes:
this
results
when
in
various
1.1.4
Techniques
SNOITINIFED
BOLD
(blood-oxygen-level
pulses
of
placed
in
Spatial
energy
an
that
is
external
long
the
time,
The
the
brain
(such
as
of
a
brain
on
used
functional
–
electroencephalography
axial
emission
a
resolution—the
brain
scan
can
to
behaviour
smallest
register
time
changes
period
in
the
in
brain
to
unit
of
space
to
conducting
unusual
The
behavioural
was
After
possible
to
imaging
techniques
are:
(CAT)
(PET)
(fMRI)
tissue
through
opposite
absorb
cells),
imaging
versus
techniques
process,
resolution,
amount
scanning
procedure,
and
imaging
techniques”
Examples
of
few
research
can
be
examples
Brown
et
al
in
this
of
See
that
other
unit
Freed
spatial
detail
on.
studies
from
See
so
found
(2000),
(2005).
imaging
TOMOGRAPHY
brain
et
al
of
trade-offs,
time
of
versus
the
“Comparison
brain
sections
other
et
Fisher
,
research
of
brain
imaging
and
Draganski
(2001),
of
full
and
used
are:
“Examples
is
resolution
al
Aron
using
units.
(2004),
and
brain
techniques”
(CAT)
Strengths
passes
the
of
structure
Maguire
imaging
(EEG).
AXIAL
as
temporal
A
(MRI)
resonance
choice
such
technology
work
X-ray
on
with
imaging
tomography
magnetic
of
limited
tomography
resonance
COMPUTERIZED
nervous
which
relation
scan
was
brain
magnetic
as
T
emporal
non-invasively
.
–
hard
a
it
–
and
locations,
in
fMRI
techniques
positron
detector
in
imaging
–
a
used
scanner
patients).
brain
commonly
an
a
brain
when
Wernicke’
s
computerized
When
of
the
signal—
blood
and
–
Principle
eld,
patients
Broca’
s
brain
human
most
nearby
study
dependent)
oxygenated
ability
research
autopsies
invention
study
in
to
UNDERSTANDING
post-mortem
deviations
by
magnetic
between
discernable
ESSENTIAL
a
emitted
resolution—the
discriminate
For
used
side
X-rays
analysis
the
of
head,
and
is
picked
analysed.
better
the
it
than
residual
Since
soft
rays
by
bone
tissue
can
up
This
is
a
quick
structure.
(such
used
and
Since
with
non-invasive
it
does
not
use
people
who
have
method
of
magnetic
medical
studying
elds,
CAT
brain
can
be
implants.
reveal
Limitations
information
about
brain
structure.
There
is
some
level
of
radiation
exposure.
Procedure
The
subject
lies
on
apparatus.
The
X-rays
pass
that
MAGNETIC
Principle
placed
nuclei
(for
These
pulses
that
of
the
table
through
an
of
we
the
into
a
subject’
s
a
large
moving
cylindrical
source
of
head.
IMAGING
(MRI)
undergo
external
those
energy
concentration
tissue,
slides
work
in
example,
dimensional
that
produces
RESONANCE
of
When
a
apparatus
can
use
picture
this
of
of
can
of
magnetic
hydrogen)
be
can
detected.
hydrogen
some
atomic
emit
energy
.
Since
differs
information
brain
eld,
to
in
we
a
a
the
long
procedure.
time
claustrophobia.
know
different
produce
for
Furthermore,
may
This
MRI
be
Being
an
may
scans
placed
issue
be
are
for
in
a
narrow
people
difcult
for
tube
suffering
young
from
children.
expensive.
types
three-
structure.
Procedure
Similar
inside
to
a
CAT
,
the
cylindrical
subject
is
placed
on
a
table
that
slides
apparatus.
Strengths
There
is
no
resolution
radiation
than
exposure.
MRI
has
a
better
spatial
CAT
.
Limitations
Due
up
the
to
its
slight
high
resolution,
abnormalities
original
complaint.
in
the
the
This
scanner
brain
may
sometimes
that
create
are
not
anxiety
picks
related
and
to
cause
Figure
people
to
magnetic
pursue
elds,
unnecessary
people
with
treatment.
metal
in
Due
their
to
body
the
1.9
MRI
machine
strong
cannot
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
9
FUNCTIONAL
Principle
This
signal.
of
of
method
a
When
a
the
RESONANCE
IMAGING
(FMRI)
work
uses
When
task,
MAGNETIC
the
brain
Strengths
BOLD
region
organism
oxygenated
(blood-oxygen-level
is
active
supplies
blood
is
it
during
with
placed
in
the
dependent)
performance
oxygenated
an
external
blood.
Unlike
MRI
structure,
produces
and
fMRI
CAT
also
excellent
that
can
shows
spatial
only
be
ongoing
used
brain
to
map
brain
processes.
It
resolution.
magnetic
Limitations
eld,
it
emits
pulses
of
energy
,
but
this
response
depends
on
It
the
blood
ow
and
level
of
oxygenation.
Since
we
know
is
of
the
most
this
also
active
brain
areas
are
supplied
with
the
most
necessary
activation
us
to
see
which
brain
areas
are
most
the
performance
of
a
particular
random
between
noise.
Some
systematic
sources
of
patterns
noise
head
movements,
dgeting
and
a
experimental
random
thoughts.
active
Eliminating
during
discriminate
and
blood,
include
allows
to
that
noise
requires
lengthy
procedure
task.
with
many
trials.
Procedure
T
emporal
Similar
to
MRI,
but
subjects
are
also
required
to
carry
out
only
task
while
their
POSITRON
Principle
A
tracer
quickly
more
of
and
being
to
emits
TOMOGRAPHY
injected
molecules
it
is
around
long-lasting
1
second,
processes
can
which
be
means
that
studied.
(PET)
Strengths
is
energy
.
supply
relatively
scanned.
work
tracer
binds
blood
is
EMISSION
radioactive
This
brain
resolution
a
The
needs,
in
the
such
as
more
hence
subject’
s
bloodstream.
glucose.
active
the
a
It
decays
brain
higher
the
area,
the
Like
fMRI,
the
brain.
can
be
this
It
shows
provides
small
and
both
good
even
the
structure
spatial
and
the
resolution,
processes
and
the
in
scanner
portable.
energy
Limitations
level
emitted
by
the
tracer
.
There
Procedure
After
the
picks
up
injection
the
the
energy
subject
is
placed
When
electric
the
on
scalp
the
to
in
a
scanner
that
slow
to
resolution
processes
can
radioactivity
(as
be
The
the
are
subject
is
in
of
neurons
generated
skull
detect
are
by
surface.
this
activated
these
simultaneously
,
impulses
Electrodes
electrical
attached
required
to
to
the
lie
electroencephalogram
can
become
be
attached
the
overall
detecting
subcortical
of
the
patterns
electrical
areas
is
of
brain
activity
too
in
provides
electric
useful
perfect
potentials
in
weak
to
scalp.
activity
.
is
scalp
still
for
at
predetermined
several
minutes
points.
while
generated.
and
is
temporal
are
diagnosing
disorders,
detected
such
cheap,
resolution—changes
within
conditions
mobile,
milliseconds.
as
silent
epilepsy
and
or
in
It
the
is
sleep
non-invasive.
Limitations
It
provides
cannot
10
be
Unit
poor
it
provides
fMRI),
spatial
established.
resolution—the
It
is
1—Biological
only
good
origin
for
approach
of
the
detecting
to
signal
changes
behaviour
Figure
1.10
EEG
machine
in
activity
.
the
Strengths
This
to
so
poor
only
relatively
registered.
Procedure
Electrodes
and
compared
(EEG)
work
groups
potentials
detectable
to
of
large
exposure
emissions.
ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY
Principle
is
temporal
use
It
cortex,
be
is
useful
but
the
registered
on
for
signal
the
from
surface
COMPARISON
Essential
✪
determined
between
by
a
versus
articiality
BRAIN
IMAGING
TECHNIQUES
understanding
Choosing
structure
OF
and
the
number
process,
cost
of
Once
techniques
of
trade-offs
spatial
the
is
and
not
and
easy
.
It
criteria
temporal
is
this
spatial
such
as
resolution,
involved.
and
time.
procedure.
It
rst
important
process.
Some
dimensional
used
to
study
image
detect
brain
distinction
techniques
of
brain
patterns
response
are
to
of
is
between
used
to
structure.
brain
Other
activity
.
performing
structure
produce
task
A
in
comes
at
can
be
are
used
comparison
to
Finally
,
there
into
Major
process?
resolution
T
emporal
to
resolution
threshold
cannot
choose
There
in
of
go.
is
your
a
means
some
a
cases.
spatial
Excellent
and
advantage
Every
Examples
of
the
course
this
unit.
OF
such
in
resolution
resolution
cost
of
low
spatial
resolution.
is
the
the
scanning
cost
and
procedure.
inuence
on
One
the
needs
to
take
participant.
to
brain
imaging
the
over
techniques,
living
post-mortem
however
,
have
brain
in
a
examination:
a
major
non-invasive
they
of
CAT
fMRI
PET
EEG
Structure
Process
Process
Process
4
Very
to
1–2
mm
Up
applicable
Gives
a
to
Not
Lower
detailed
more
image
as
of
the
1–2
brain
mm
Up
applicable
three-dimensional
brain
imaging
RESEARCH
research
various
Study
allow
cost;
and
MRIs
1
1–2
Shows
used
more
to
brain
rarely
mm
second
patterns
activation
performing
become
mm
30–40
a
seconds
of
Portable;
while
associated
scanning
task
less
Brain
Here
to
poor
Milliseconds
Detects
artifacts
with
quick
the
the
procedure
very
changes
patterns
in
of
cortical
activity
(“brain
waves”)
techniques
USING
studies
units.
us
way
.
Structure
Not
for
Summary
EXAMPLES
scanning
imaging
temporal
temporal
cheaper
1.1
trade-off
longer
MRI
Up
resolution
research
T
able
desirable
certain
B.
Criteria
Spatial
a
it
the
account
study
or
spatial
problematic
has
which
advantage
Structure
be
need
and
All
performing
can
you
resolution.
three-
techniques
They
task
a
decided,
temporal
Higher
technique
above
The
is
and
can
are
a
imaging
BRAIN
be
found
few
IMAGING
TECHNIQUES
throughout
examples
from
Aim
technique
Draganski
et
al
MRI
T
o
investigate
MRI
T
o
compare
changes
in
grey
matter
volume
as
a
result
of
practising
a
simple
juggling
routine
(2004)
Maguire
et
al
(2000)
Freed
brain
structure
in
people
with
extensive
navigational
skills
(London
taxi
drivers)
and
controls
et
al
(2001)
PET
T
o
investigate
transplanting
if
dopamine
has
any
role
dopamine-producing
on
tissue
behavioural
to
the
symptoms
putamen
of
of
Parkinson’
s
patients
with
disease,
severe
by
Parkinson’
s
disease
Fisher
,
Aron
Brown
T
able
and
fMRI
T
o
(2005)
investigate
they
love,
which
and
to
areas
study
of
the
the
role
brain
of
are
activated
dopamine
in
when
feelings
of
participants
romantic
look
at
pictures
of
people
love
1.2
1.2
Hormones
1.2.1
The
SNOITINIFED
Endocrine
of
the
and
inuence
system—a
organism;
the
of
chemical
system
of
pheromones
hormones
messenger
glands
that
system
on
behaviour
behaviour
term
secrete
and
can
carries
also
this
be
used
inoperative
to
describe
the
organism
that
gene
hormones
Oxytocin—a
Gene
one
knockout
of
the
genes
(KO)—a
of
an
genetic
organism
technique
is
in
“switched
which
off”;
the
hormone
and
released
by
role
in
interaction
social
the
produced
pituitary
and
Biological
by
gland;
sexual
the
it
is
hypothalamus
known
for
its
reproduction
approach
to
behaviour
11
ESSENTIAL
Like
neurotransmitters,
However
,
are
UNDERSTANDING
their
released
slower
hormones
mechanism
into
the
processes.
of
bloodstream
See
are
action
chemical
is
and
“Comparison
messengers.
different.
regulate
of
Scheele
They
effect
relatively
hormones
woman
and
that
neurotransmitters”.
in
a
are
of
many
different
oxytocin,
a
hormones,
hormone
known
but
as
we
will
“the
focus
love
on
et
in
switched
mice
is
familiar
al
social
(2000)
al
observed
off,
stimuli.
understanding
what
of
oxytocin
is
in
a
to
stable
behaviour
(but
oxytocin
is
have
an
single
not
in
placebo).
They
men
men)
an
attractive
relationship.
inhibited
not
(but
would
approach
found
who
when
This
are
they
are
suggests
the
oxytocin
al
plays
a
role
in
human
delity.
See
Scheele
(2012)
it
that
prevents
This
may
causes
be
when
them
the
from
potentially
autism
in
oxytocin
gene
recognizing
helpful
humans.
See
in
Ferguson
(2000)
COMPARISON
Essential
✪
man
relationship
dose
if
“Oxytocin”
Ferguson
et
the
tested
willingness
hormone”.
et
See
a
(2012)
man’
s
approach
stable
that
role
al
a
if
this
given
There
et
on
Unlike
HORMONES
AND
NEUROTRANSMITTERS
understanding
neurotransmitters,
bloodstream
What
OF
means
and
of
regulate
hormones
relatively
communication
are
are
slower
released
into
the
The
processes.
used?
function
of
hormones
neurotransmitters
in
differs
several
Neurotransmitters
Hormones
The
The
nervous
system
system
released
What
processes
are
regulated?
Relatively
rapid
decisions,
T
able
processes
attention
and
such
so
as
emotions,
of
into
Relatively
on
from
the
function
of
ways.
blood
the
slow
metabolism,
vessels
(hormones
are
bloodstream)
processes
digestion
such
or
as
growth,
reproduction
1.3
Hormones
glands,
glands
are
the
are
released
by
hypothalamus
known
as
the
endocrine
or
glands
pancreas.
endocrine
such
T
ogether
as
all
adrenal
these
system.
There
is
a
large
variety
of
hormones
Examples
include
adrenaline,
oxytocin,
insulin,
testosterone
and
and
cuddle
chemical”.
is
produced
noradrenaline,
in
the
body
.
cortisol,
oestrogen.
OXYTOCIN
Oxytocin
is
released
by
sexual
reproduction,
is
it
why
has
been
given
RESEARCH
Essential
When
✪
prevents
may
be
the
pituitary
childbirth
such
and
gland.
social
labels
Ferguson
et
It
plays
a
bonding,
love
role
in
which
as
“the
hormone”
al
(2000)—social
oxytocin
them
from
potentially
gene
in
in
in
the
which
mother
mice
plays
and
lacking
It
a
the
the
also
role
in
released
during
establishing
the
bond
child.
oxytocin
gene
Participants
mice
recognizing
helpful
between
amnesia
understanding
the
“the
breastfeeding,
is
switched
familiar
social
understanding
off,
it
stimuli.
what
42
This
oxytocin
genotype.
gene
All
knockout
mice
were
mice
and
42
mice
with
normal
male.
causes
Method
autism
in
humans.
Experiment;
Background
Social
familiarity
repeated
in
rodents
is
based
on
olfactory
cues.
mixed
design
(independent
measures
and
measures).
If
Procedure
a
rodent
repeatedly
meets
another
member
of
the
same
A
species,
the
olfactory
investigation
time
(time
spent
female
the
the
other
animal
on
meeting
it)
Aim
These
investigate
the
role
of
oxytocin
in
social
memory
in
rodents.
used
new
four
were
on
all
Olfactory
time
Unit
1—Biological
for
approach
to
behaviour
times
called
four
female
Behaviour
12
was
“participant”
introduced
a
into
one-minute
the
home
cage
confrontation.
of
This
was
decreases.
repeated
T
o
mouse
snifng
trials.
On
was
recorded
investigation
spent
in
ten-minute
“habituation
mouse
was
with
nasal
the
intervals
trials”.
fth
trial
The
between
same
trials.
mouse
(dishabituation)
was
a
introduced.
and
was
contact
scored
by
trained
raters.
operationalized
as
with
mouse.
the
female
the
amount
of
60
Results
Mice
with
normal
Oxytocin
spent
genotype
gene
equal
knockout
time
in
mice
olfactory
showed
contact
no
habituation.
with
the
female
They
mouse
50
showed
each
considerable
habituation
from
the
)s(
to
the
amount
in
fourth.
of
time
olfactory
The
they
contact
noitarud
trial
mouse
she
was
placed
in
the
cage.
spent
with
the
40
Conclusion
Oxytocin
*
is
necessary
for
the
development
of
social
memory
30
in
mice.
It
plays
a
role
in
recognizing
familiar
members
of
the
*
same
20
female
time
rst
decreased
species.
–/–
Oxr
*
+/+
on
each
subsequent
trial.
Oxr
Notes:
In
terms
of
its
application
could
be
useful
to
humans,
results
of
10
On
the
new
fth
trial
female
(when
mouse
the
this
was
research
treatments
0
for
autism.
for
the
Although
development
not
directly
of
about
new
autism,
new
1
introduced)
2
3
4
dishabituation
this
study
suggests
that
oxytocin
levels
may
be
responsible
female
occurred
of
time
and
in
the
amount
olfactory
contact
returned
original
level.
Figure
to
Essential
et
the
RESEARCH
Scheele
al
1.11
Results
of
Ferguson
(2000)
et
al
(2012)—the
role
of
understanding
Oxytocin
✪
for
modulates
social
distance
between
men
and
women.
reacting
to
social
people
suffering
(Modi,
Y
oung
oxytocin
in
cues,
from
which
disorders
is
of
one
the
of
the
autistic
decits
in
spectrum
2012).
human
delity
•
positive
social
•
positive
non-social
pictures
•
negative
social
•
negative
non-social
(such
pictures
pictures
as
attractive
(such
(such
pictures
as
as
women)
beautiful
landscapes)
mutilations)
(such
as
dirt).
Aim
If
T
o
investigate
the
role
of
oxytocin
in
promoting
delity
the
participant
liked
the
picture,
he
had
to
pull
the
joystick,
in
increasing
the
size
he
push
of
the
picture.
If
he
did
not
like
the
picture,
humans.
had
to
the
joystick,
making
the
picture
smaller
.
Participants
Results
86
heterosexual
men,
some
single
and
some
in
a
stable
Results
of
the
rst
task
showed
that
oxytocin
the
attractive
caused
men
relationship.
to
keep
a
greater
confederate,
Method
Experiment;
independent
measures
design;
double
blind
study
.
Results
of
but
the
distance
only
if
second
pictures
affected
positive
social
by
from
the
task
man
was
showed
oxytocin
and
in
that
a
female
stable
the
relationship.
only
relationship
group
status
of
was
the
Procedure
Either
oxytocin
or
placebo
was
administered
to
the
After
this,
participants
were
required
to
engage
of
attractive
women).
Men
a
relationship
(but
not
single
men)
pulled
the
joystick
in
more
two
(pictures
participants
in
intranasally
.
group
slowly
in
the
oxytocin
condition
but
not
in
the
placebo
tasks.
condition.
1.
Stop-distance
end
at
of
the
the
other
approach
made
2.
room;
end.
the
them
paradigm—the
an
attractive
Participants
female
feel
in
They
then
were
random
front
of
a
shown
instructed
and
stood
confederate
stop
to
at
a
at
one
Conclusion
stood
Oxytocin
slowly
distance
that
uncomfortable.
Approach/avoidance
positioned
were
confederate
slightly
participant
female
task—participants
screen.
They
a
of
series
also
had
pictures
of
were
a
types,
in
causes
from
men
in
attractive
Researchers
explained
The
task
is
joystick.
four
distance
second
highly
specic
attractive
relationship
women
that
makes
and
a
it
this
who
keep
not
promotes
evident
selective
to
are
to
that
a
a
greater
their
partner
.
delity
.
this
certain
effect
of
oxytocin
group
of
stimuli:
women.
order:
O x ytocin
30 cm
Figure
1.12
The
Placebo
59 cm
57 cm
Single males
Single males
71 cm
57 cm
Pair-bonded males
Pair-bonded males
1.70 m
stop-distance
30 cm
1.70 m
paradigm
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
13
1.2.2
The
inuence
SNOITINIFED
Pheromone—a
information
from
one
are
information
from
but
mechanism
one
in
of
The
search
human
for
laboratory
example,
that
sexual
species
to
on
communicates
behaviour
Putative
attractiveness)
that
another
is
of
a
accessory
not
there
that
communicate
species
to
olfactory
exists
in
a
neither
another.
bulb
could
in
basic
biological
humans
is
carried
This
seems
women’
s
function
procedure
Olsson
out
the
to
by
these
has
taken
the
form
of
In
experiments.
and
Olsson
showed
mood
of
male,
but
a
suggest
emotional
as
female
in
the
a
that
a
not
to
a
participants
female
men,
pheromone.
a
and
hand,
Hare
estratetraenol
such
as
(EST)
et
al
OF
human
results
as
nor
EST
attractiveness.
pheromone
bring
putative
into
(estratetraenol)
Since
must
question
human
these
be
are
able
the
status
pheromones.
the
to
of
See
Hare
experiment,
showed
that
Cutler,
a
to
aftershave
of
men
to
women,
of
sexual
Friedman
synthetic
cream
and
human
increased
McCoy
pheromone
which
resulted
in
the
a
attractiveness
higher
if
the
can
in
a
See
Cutler,
Friedman
incidence
and
study
modulate
its
Lundstrom
(2017)
behaviours.
(1998)
experimenter
.
indicating
See
procedure
these
a
or
applied
These
research
possible
laboratory
and
available
studies,
and
eld
research,
research
human
has
however
,
experiments
it
must
been
be
only
in
has
not
for
and
been
as
area.
concluded
contradictory
pheromone
serve
this
examples
the
time
See
all
being
inconclusive,
found.
of
Summarizing
and
“Criticism
carefully
of
demonstrated
human
pheromone
research”
that
PHEROMONES
Preoptic
Pheromones
are
chemicals
area
Accessory
understanding
that
signal
information
and
Cortex
olfactory
✪
substance
pheromone
(2017)
eld
that
experimental
Essential
chemical
human
androstadienone
androstadienone
reaction
human
other
BIOLOGY
be
an
(2005)
designed
to
(androstadienone)
chemicals
(1998)
(2005)
that
al
the
On
pheromone—a
(AND)
gender
functions
perform,
unclear.
et
pheromones
eld
AND
signal
McCoy
was
human
hypothesized
androstadienone
pheromones”
and
increased
messengers
pheromones
Lundstrom
experimental
(AND)
or
process
“Biology
For
or
member
the
whether
to
See
both
a
chemical
processed
animals,
messenger
fertility
of
pheromones
UNDERSTANDING
Pheromones
are
as
member
ESSENTIAL
They
chemical
(such
of
(such
hypothalamus
bulbs
Thalamus
as
fertility
or
sexual
attractiveness)
from
one
member
of
a
Main
species
to
another
.
While
pheromones
are
important
for
olfactory
Hippocampus
communication
role
in
humans
in
is
various
species,
including
mammals,
bulbs
their
debatable.
Vomeronasal
nerves
Pheromones
are
chemical
messengers
Olfactory
Pheromones
are
chemicals
that
provide
chemical
mucosa
communication
this
way
,
chemical
just
like
species
members
of
neurotransmitters
messengers.
messengers,
one
between
However
,
pheromones
member
to
the
and
unlike
species.
hormones,
the
communicate
same
other
they
In
are
chemical
information
from
Amygdala
another
.
Olfactory
An
example
of
information
that
is
communicated
by
Vomeronasal
nerves
pheromones
shown
to
number
is
play
of
female
an
fertility
.
important
species
Such
role
including
in
many
pheromones
the
sexual
have
organ
been
behaviour
of
a
Figure
1.13
Biology
Processing
Where
in
the
brain
are
pheromones
have
a
structure
called
the
(VNO)
located
in
their
nasal
cavity
.
This
connected
through
nerves
to
the
brain
region
called
olfactory
bulb.
This
region
is
adjacent
to,
fetuses
from,
the
brain
area
smells,
the
main
olfactory
responsible
for
and
have
have
it,
and
accessory
some
appears
However
,
in
chemicals
human
to
there
approach
to
behaviour
humans
that
after
olfactory
birth.
don’t.
be
is
is
have
pheromones
estratetraenol
1—Biological
the
As
for
bulb,
the
but
VNO,
it
some
Even
in
those
disconnected
people
from
the
who
nervous
still
a
possibility
that
pheromonal
bulb
T
wo
Unit
have
disappears
it
it
information
14
the
processing
system.
regular
in
but
do
separate
information
the
people
accessory
pheromonal
brain
structure
regresses
is
processing
vomeronasal
Human
organ
pheromone
processed?
human
Mammals
of
mammals.
(EST).
are
processed
been
elsewhere.
extensively
androstadienone
studied
(AND)
as
and
putative
RESEARCH
Lundstrom
attraction
Essential
✪
Being
of
women
and
to
Olsson
(2005)—effects
to
understanding
exposed
in
the
to
androstadienone
presence
of
a
of
male
increases
the
experimenter
,
either
that
this
chemical
may
trigger
androstadienone
presence
mood
of
Aim
investigate
in
the
the
effect
of
androstadienone
presence
of
men.
on
the
mood
of
The
several
women,
mean
age
25
years,
with
a
normal
carried
participants’
or
or
a
a
control
female
solution,
and
in
the
experimenter
.
out
a
number
was
One
of
of
measurements
the
questionnaires
mood.
either
female
(age
28)
or
male
30).
Androstadienone
cycle.
of
Method
a
male
increased
experimenter
,
women’
s
mood
but
not
a
female
serve
the
function
in
the
presence
experimenter
.
Conclusion
Experiment;
variables
male
Results
heterosexual
menstrual
a
questionnaires.
experimenter
(age
Participants
37
either
experimenter
measured
women
women’s
attraction.
including
T
o
on
which
The
suggests
androstadienone
men
2
with
x
2
experimental
two
levels
design
(two
independent
Androstadienone
each).
attractiveness,
may
which
supports
its
role
as
of
a
signaling
sexual
pheromone.
Procedure
Female
participants’
experimental
mood
design.
RESEARCH
They
was
Hare
et
gender
Essential
Any
✪
perform
perceived
Hare
et
perform
their
that
signaling
two
is
research
either
status
al
a
2
x
after
2
being
(2017)—the
and
exposed
ability
of
androstadienone
sexual
In
as
of
of
these
signal
the
showed
human
to
be
attractiveness
1)
of
a
and
the
estratetraenol
to
signal
AND
which
brings
second
task
of
the
attractiveness
able
on
they
were
opposite
a
scale
shown
sex
from
and
1
to
photographs
asked
to
rate
of
their
10.
affect
opposite
neither
functions,
be
2)
the
individuals
human
must
gender
faces
that
and
attractiveness
hypothesized
functions:
attractiveness
al’s
in
assessed
understanding
chemical
pheromone
to
studied
were
nor
sex.
EST
into
question
pheromones.
Aim
T
o
investigate
if
androstadienone
(AND)
and
estratetraenol
Figure
(EST)
signal
gender
and
affect
mate
1.14
Gender-neutral
facial
morphs
perception.
Results
Participants
There
140
heterosexual
faces
Method
no
Experiment;
repeated
measures
design.
completed
consecutive
days.
putative
the
oil
alone).
In
the
or
day
The
rst
neutral
On
two
one
pheromone
other
order
task,
facial
they
of
computer-based
of
the
(AND
were
days
or
conditions
and
were
the
difference
pheromone
in
gender
difference
versus
assigned
in
the
average
of
the
opposite
control
to
the
condition.
morphed
attractiveness
There
ratings
of
was
the
sex.
on
two
exposed
with
control
clove
scent
The
to
oil;
(clove
two
gender
chemicals
or
of
concluded
(AND
and
attractiveness.
that
these
EST)
do
not
act
Based
on
this
result,
chemicals
do
not
as
qualify
signals
of
researchers
as
human
pheromones.
counterbalanced.
shown
to
tasks
masked
to
was
were
had
they
EST)
exposed
participants
morphs”
ve
indicate
“gender-
the
gender
(male
female).
RESEARCH
Cutler,
Friedman
human
Essential
✪
no
the
Conclusion
Participants
on
in
photographs
Procedure
the
was
adults.
In
a
lotion
McCoy
(1998)—a
to
understanding
eld
synthetic
and
experiment,
human
increased
researchers
pheromone
the
eld
experiment
with
a
synthetic
pheromone
applied
incidence
of
showed
to
a
that
man’s
behaviours
a
aftershave
that
suggest
sexual
researchers
contact
concluded
attractiveness
of
men
initiated
that
to
by
women.
pheromones
may
From
this,
increase
sexual
women.
seemed
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
15
masking
Aim
T
o
investigate
increase
if
a
synthesized
sociosexual
human
behaviour
of
pheromone
agent
to
compensate
for
the
possible
smell
of
the
pheromone.
can
men.
This
was
followed
regularly
and
by
lling
six
out
more
the
weeks
of
using
behavioural
the
aftershave
calendar
.
Participants
Male
volunteers,
all
heterosexual,
25–42
years
old,
in
good
Results
health
and
with
regular
appearance.
Compared
to
participants
the
in
control
the
group,
pheromone
a
larger
group
number
showed
an
of
increase
Method
over
Field
experiment;
independent
measures
the
baseline
sleeping
dates).
Procedure
Each
participant
lotion
after
was
every
asked
shave
to
for
use
the
his
regular
duration
in
the
rst
four
behaviours
(petting,
design.
of
to
a
partner,
Differences
behaviours
aftershave
the
next
were
(formal
sexual
not
dates
intercourse
observed
and
in
the
and
last
informal
two
masturbation).
study.
Conclusion
Participants
were
they
ll
also
given
a
behavioural
calendar
that
Researchers
had
to
out
on
a
daily
basis,
indicating
the
human
of
the
following
six
behaviours
on
that
petting,
–
sleeping
–
sexual
–
informal
–
formal
–
masturbation.
There
next
and/or
a
with
on
CRITICISM
Essential
period
ethanol
in
the
area
awed
the
results.
limitations
their
HUMAN
contradictory
by
to
two
weeks.
either
condition).
produced
the
of
added
After
ethanol
or
aftershave
Ethanol
was
a
On
the
fact
that
There
of
also
a
the
as
must
be
pheromones
Much
are
of
this
has
research
commercially
number
quality
of
of
a
due
is
are
human
interested
to
increased
women.
would
in
be
often).
formal
to
say
(so
that
that
However
,
dates
and
it
they
the
was
initiated
fact
that
masturbation
explanation.
hand,
spontaneous
that
the
sexual
contact
encounters
might
have
were
been
women.
eld
interested
Friedman
typical
was
study
.
experiments
effort
the
in
and
it
the
and
is
done
results.
of
human
a
in
this
funding
McCoy
founder
synthetic
that
research
pheromones
is
is
inconclusive
not
a
by
area
that
is
are
companies
This
was
the
(1998)—the
company
pheromone.
who
case
rst
that
rarely
required.
are
with
author
produced
That
is
why
conducted
When
they
nancially
Cutler
,
of
the
and
they
study
marketed
and
the
formula
of
the
chemical
in
their
do
research
not
paper
.
the
this
also
means
that
an
independent
researcher
cannot
scientically
and
replicate
the
results
of
the
study!
for
existence
every
of
methodological
limitations
ndings
laboratory
experiment
that
human
pheromones,
we
can
there
are
major
methodological
limitations
inherent
in
supports
any
the
this
by
the
Thirdly
,
all,
to
increased
more
change
indicating
Inherent
of
synthetic
lotion
fact.
Contradictory
First
men
that
women
no
other
methodological
try
established
the
inconclusive
admitted
of
of
libido
conducted,
But
existence
that
aftershave
RESEARCH
reveal
It
the
a
a
is
the
Secondly
,
human
authors
compromising
Research
with
initiated
lotion
used
PHEROMONE
ndings.
are
evidence
to
explanation
own
was
affected,
synthesized
understanding
Research
men’
s
contradicts
the
OF
alternative
the
there
baseline
as
attractiveness
contact
technician
(depending
in
An
partner
dates
a
a
result
applied
kissing
romantic
dates
pheromone
✪
to
intercourse
was
baseline,
affection
this
pheromone
day:
sexual
–
took
incidence
probably
research
study
in
this
eld
(Verhaeghe,
Gheysen,
Enzlin
nd
2013).
a
study
Olsson
that
doesn’t—this
(2005)
versus
Commercial
T
ypical
Hare
is
the
et
al
case
It
characteristics
–
(2017).
may
be
they
easy
are
–
validity
the
Even
study
in
eld
naturally
to.
We
to
T
able
16
If
in
they
are
keep
for
participants
aware
participate
validity
and
Explanation
Demand
Internal
Lundstrom
interest
limitation
Ecological
with
in
of
the
the
includes
use
an
exposed
surveys
the
sweat.
a
participants
the
criteria,
large
with
1—Biological
approach
aim
of
the
example,
lotion
variety
“odourless”
that
of
for
to
about
of
participants
study
women
smells
the
behaviour
in
the
because:
taking
participants’
pheromones
can
smells
1.4
Unit
true
for
questions
concentration
Some
aftershave
to
guess
contraceptive
pills
are
not
allowed
to
study
experiments
human
to
exclusion
even
used
identify
unusual,
this
our
lives,
duration
daily
of
the
in
in
the
itself
and
sexual
the
unusual
can
these
experiment,
orientation
solution
smell
change
act
but
is
as
this
and
much
in
the
their
behaviour
,
practically
behaviours.
than
substance
confounding
is
sexual
higher
that
they
making
variables.
impossible
found
are
it
exposed
less
Effort
to
is
natural.
made
achieve.
1.3
Genetics
1.3.1
Genes
DNA
and
methylation—the
chemicals
(methyl
molecule,
affecting
SNOITINIFED
Epigenetic
the
and
behaviour,
process
groups)
gene
are
by
occurring
which
added
to
genetic
similarities
certain
the
Gene
DNA
as
a
of
result
RNA
the
of
phenotype
changes
in
from
the
part
of
DNA
responsible
molecules
manifestation
ESSENTIAL
Debate
of
and
for
a
specic
trait
or
it
biological
is
on
In
process
based
the
on
the
genotype
of
molecule
Genotype—the
synthesizing
DNA
in
blueprint;
or
phenotypical
individual’
s
in
its
the
modern
the
classic
factors
version
relative
form
of
that
the
asks
whether
primarily
question,
contributions
of
the
affect
the
two
focus
variation
While
this
in
is
“The
inheritance
their
dynamic
nature-nurture
See
is
variety
of
interaction
with
each
methods
on
can
behaviour
.
adoption
and
be
used
Some
to
of
investigate
these
principle
of
can
studies
and
family
studies)
are
based
genetic
be
used
similarity
.
to
Other
establish
the
methods
role
of
behaviours.
Falconer
of
the
of
assumes
a
See
the
to
“Methods
estimate
that
study
the
is
the
of
heritability
Falconer
phenotypical
contribution
“The
shared
Falconer
Interaction
The
IQ
IQ
The
Falconer
the
possibility
of
of
three
of
a
trait
model.
variation
of
independent
environment
genes
that
For
those
line
inuence
and
however
,
these
example,
factors
bits
with
of
of
by
and
does
a
model
trait
is
factors:
individual
not
may
genetic
causing
of
genetic
on
environmental
take
into
themselves
factors
a
the
can
growing
and
Applying
is
known
actually
or
manifest
an
behaviour
due
it
to
factor
McGue
genetic
also
inheritance.
means
that
inuencing
genetic
intelligence.
(1981).
example
(1983)
obtained
two
seemingly
poor
increase
in
IQ
socio-economic
points
status
when
are
and
more
educated
adopted
families.
adopted
children
biological,
correlates
but
not
more
strongly
adoptive,
parents.
with
is
resolved
by
environmental
the
idea
factors.
of
additive
See
Scarr
inuence
and
methods
of
molecular
examples
of
a
research
genetics
factors
as
that
is
study
Caspi
that
people
et
with
al
used
the
(2003).
methods
one
or
two
It
was
short
5-HTT
gene
that
See
prone
Epigenetic
to
are
“The
niche-picking”.
inuence
epigenetic
on
vulnerable
to
stress
alleles
and
as
a
of
result
to
depression.
See
Caspi
et
al
(2003).
molecular
Weaver
et
(nurturing
(stress
studies
also
use
mechanisms
al
(2004)
behaviour
reactivity)
of
in
modern
the
explored
of
rat
through
certain
technology
regulation
how
the
to
gene
establish
expression.
environmental
mothers)
gene
of
can
regulation
inuence
of
sequences)
gene
factors
behaviour
expression
without
changing
gene
changes.
genetics:
more
account
inuence
environment
can
are
See
gene
itself.
They
found
that
less
nurturing
from
the
rat
“The
results
in
higher
methylation
of
the
glucocorticoid
epigenetics”.
gene,
in
which
the
brain
in
turn
and
leads
higher
to
fewer
glucocorticoid
vulnerability
to
stress.
example
McGue
studies
the
is
only
employing
example
(1981)
conducted
a
looking
Falconer
at
model
heritability
to
their
of
data
were
also
able
to
reverse
this
effect
with
a
drug.
meta-analysis
See
twin
that
inuence
individual
predisposition.
environment:
environment
studies:
111
traits
(1983).
molecular
They
of
in
an
environment.
receptors
Bouchard
in
explained
receptor
T
win
coded
genetic
mother
of
is
from
This
the
inuence
it
environment
factors
(“niches”)
their
genetics
expression—this
a
their
and
(methylation
Conversely
,
as
model”.
model,
environmental
in
of
considerable
controversy
more
more
traits
estimate,
the
and
with
of
genetic
the
choose
a
ndings.
demonstrated
other
.
in
research”.
of
each
decoding
acids
genes
An
See
not
a
genetics:
inheritance,
amino
model
ways
twin
large
wealthier
Studies
by
of
appearance
studies:
is
Weinberg
results
of
(molecular
specic
of
One
expression;
on
This
The
set
Weinberg
There
the
specic
gene
(twin
–
in
of
sequence
genetic
methods
by
genetics)
a
other
.
children
the
synthesized
debate”.
–
studies,
set
body
,
Bouchard
controversial
inuences
expression;
freshly
factors
Scarr
A
into
intelligence
a
Adoption
studying
See
a
traits
of
debate
environmental
quantifying
and
in
DNA
Phenotype—a
the
methods
nature-nurture
behaviour
.
gene
UNDERSTANDING
The
is
of
sequence
translation—part
RNA
individual’
s
expression—the
organic
DNA
protein
behaviour
Gene
the
molecule
Gene
gene
expression
Gene—a
transcription—part
replicating
transcription
changes—deviations
genotype
behaviour
Weaver
et
al
(2004).
intelligence.
shows
that
54%
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
17
EXAM
There
TIP
are
two
overlapping
which
arguments
This
best
is
versus
and
explained
with
environmental
topics:
research
reference
factors
1.
twin
2.
adoption
3.
family
4.
molecular
genetics
(and
The
rst
methods
are
of
relevant
are
two
1.
the
question
based
the
THE
on
based
the
ways
implies
implies
of
in
of
The
four
the
used
main
to
inuence
of
establish
on
of
genetic
specic
the
specic
genetics
inuence
of
similarity
.
genes
(and
genetics
genes
topic
or
Modern
quantifying
by
is
important
to
understand
to
study
the
inuence
of
genetic
nature-nurture
and
its
classic
of
form
factors
the
in
asks
that
debate
contributions
dynamic
whether
biological
debate
is
philosophy.
human
factors
studies
based
on
these
on
behaviour
,
for
a
particular
behaviour”
you
should
may
use
be
behaviour
.
asked.
arguments
and
research
studies
epigenetics).
general,
you
can
some
in
environmental
relative
research
use
any
arguments
and
studies
including
those
based
DEBATE
debate
their
and
similarities.
reformulation
the
investigating
psychology
was
It
used
Arguments
and
of
if
it
is
inuence
is
interaction
–
How
concerned
both
with
one
In
behaviour
(nature)
of
its
is
or
the
form
primarily
once
can
we
and
nurture
Are
nature
we
that
quantify
to
acknowledge
need
the
to
be
that,
there
are
investigated.
relative
contributions
of
nature
behaviour?
debates
the
and
nurture
really
independent
factors
or
other
.
there
some
nurture
in
question
determined
environmental
But
questions
factors
each
longest
original
extent.
follow-up
is
The
methods
responsible
“Genes
–
and
similarities”.
similarities”.
questions
molecular
the
principle
understanding
biological
behaviour
.
are
genetic
nature-nurture
primarily
methods.
“Genetic
topic.
are:
“Genetic
which
the
methods
on
topic
NATURE-NURTURE
The
with
the
principle
Essential
✪
and
each
epigenetics).
genetics
possible
question
the
for
molecular
There
If
research
behaviour
to
studies
three
Methods
on
to
behaviour”
relevant
studies
are
2.
on
and
are
studies
methods
If
“Genes
studies
sort
of
themselves?
inuence
the
inuence
genetics?
interaction
For
between
example,
environment?
Can
can
nature
biological
environmental
and
factors
factors
inuences
An
attempt
to
answer
these
questions
would
require
(nurture).
sophisticated
This
original
human
form
is
outdated.
behaviour
is
determined
METHODS
Essential
✪
is
conducted
into
is
little
both
doubt
these
family
the
role
of
that
factors
to
and
Method
Explanation
T
win
T
win
studies
(DZ)
studies
twins
like
in
twin
molecular
are
for
a
behaviour
behaviour
three
genetics
methods
studies
a
based
than
studies,
on
genetically
DZ
or
the
rst
similarity
behaviour
.
inherited,
one
MZ
might
children
and
their
adoptive
–
adopted
children
and
their
biological
parents
–
adopted
children
and
their
biological
siblings.
studies
genetic
siblings
of
than
Molecular
These
genetics
Genetic
Unit
Methods
a
of
is
trait,
use
mapping
the
commonly
1—Biological
behavioural
on
then
we
compared
might
modern
reveal
who
study
used
collecting
equally
can
individuals
epigenetics,
1.5
based
cousins,
methods
groups
compare
relatedness
heritability
the
identifying
at
principle
groups
of
of
genetic
individuals.
specic
genes
similarity
The
last
responsible
one
for
is
specic
monozygotic
100%
that
MZ
of
(MZ)
their
twins
will
twins
genotype
be
more
to
the
and
similarity
DZ
similar
to
twins
each
between
share
other
dizygotic
50%
in
on
terms
average.
of
this
twins.
adopted
are
on
aimed
share
expect
–
studies
based
various
between
twins
Adoption
Family
are
between
behaviours.
studies
Family
studies
The
comparing
trait
behaviour
adoption
genetics.
particular
is
human
Adoption
T
able
methods.
RESEARCH
using
If
18
by
understanding
Research
studies,
OF
There
research
of
to
genetic
gene
study
about
the
such
groups
families
observed
children
to
be
grandparents
mapping
particular
have
approach
to
to
in
of
alleles
different
more
and
technology
of
every
variants
on
a
broader
similarities
similar
aunts,
to
gene
(alleles)
in
of
to
effect
of
genotype
behaviour
on
a
to
and
as:
scale,
certain
their
so
investigate
in
spanning
trait
parents
how
several
generations.
behaviour
.
than
to
behaviour
given
individual,
the
same
gene.
behaviour
or
For
The
example,
grandparents,
level
of
assuming
more
similar
to
on.
a
expression.
the
people
parents
data
expect
similar
similarities
and
Methods
is
inuenced
behaviour
of
is
by
then
molecular
specic
genes.
compared
genetics
are
across
also
used
in
THEORY
THE
FALCONER
MODEL
T
o
estimate
take
Essential
The
✪
trait
the
model
is
observed
to
estimate
heritability
similarities
a
way
between
MZ
twins
twins
of
(rMZ
Falconer
quantify
in
the
rMZ
and
model
is
relative
used
with
twin
contribution
of
research
heredity
data
are
two
sources
to
a
100%
of
of
It
makes
the
following
assumption:
A
=
+
C
of
observed
from
+
variation
heredity
trait
E
applied
to
twins,
sources
in
A,
phenotype
shared
is
explained
environment
C
environment
shared
environment
except
of
that
environment
refers
THE
each
two
environmental
picking,
certain
to
twins
those
OF
genetic
Niche-picking
is
have
bits
in
the
by
rMZ
they
of
is
the
part
of
the
of
the
and
the
environment
that
can
ON
ways
an
in
dynamically
example
environment.
THE
(or
their
causes
of
It
how
is
gene
ENVIRONMENT:
which
genetic
interact.
the
In
and
rDZ
into
niche-
individual
to
genetic
factors
example,
is
select
hard
and
in
to
the
phenomenon
individuals
in
the
to
select
environment)
of
are
the
the
OF
ENVIRONMENT
factors
can
Genotype
synthesizing
expression
genotype
instructions
the
share
from
dizygotic
50%
A
measured
formulas
=
is
of
half
directly
above,
2(rMZ
This
contributes
based
model)
may
it
who
is
it
–
twins
their
are
the
as
genotype,
so
much)
in
is
research.
easy
to
Plugging
estimate
A:
rDZ)
genetically
intentionally
succeed.
turn
on
look
to
out
environments
reinforces
the
child's
to
depression.
results
like
predisposed
seek
of
the
a
twin
main
On
study
factor
of
low
the
where
surface
and
it
self-esteem
the
(for
Falconer
depression
is
the
can
in
environment,
but
the
environment
rst
place.
itself
was
which
by
genetics
in
the
certain
which
in
turn
ON
GENETICS:
In
play
as
EPIGENETICS
a
such
proteins
role
is
in
not
based
the
regulation
changed,
on
the
but
DNA
of
the
the
process
(methyl
known
groups)
represses
gene
are
as
methylation,
added
to
the
DNA
certain
chemicals
molecule
which
transcription.
may
may
protein
as
for
is
the
the
based
the
biological
phenotype.
synthesis
on
these
of
process
The
DNA
proteins,
instructions
of
be
the
includes
two
steps:
transcription
and
expression
caused
freshly
the
DNA
sequence
gets
synthesized
RNA
molecule.
In
molecule
protein.
is
decoded
Once
destination
the
in
into
protein
the
a
sequence
itself
not
by
is
replicated
translation,
amino
synthesized,
of
nature
environmental
range
expression
Some
at
genes
of
factors.
any
stage,
be
genotype
This
itself,
is
but
Regulation
of
phenotype
from
it
is
gene
expression
the
genetic
results
code.
in
deviations
These
of
deviations
the
are
as
epigenetic
changes,
and
is
as
the
area
of
research
In
in
them
known
epigenetics.
a
this
acids
investigates
RNA
in
a
transported
DNA
RNA
Protein
to
body
.
factors
may
the
it).
Transcription
wide
(not
simple.
translation.
of
affect
constructing
that
transcription,
can
contains
but
is
manifesting
nurture
known
A
C
affected.
Gene
its
child
example,
how
It
a
may
Methylation
be
+
NICHE-PICKING
depression
understanding
expression.
processes
causes
“niches”
Environmental
✪
common
behaviour
.
INFLUENCE
Essential
monozygotic
the
are
environment.
predisposition
inuence
and
individual
For
the
predisposition
of
is
environments
between
the
caused
genetic
1/2A
between
only
contribution
and
values
demanding
inuence
C
E)
common,
GENETICS
one
factors
aspects
+
and
understanding
Niche-picking
✪
to
twin.
INFLUENCE
Essential
A
genotype
=
similarity
that
A
environment
to
need
1
these
unique
also
or
Both
individual
As
you
environment)
(the
contributions
=
similarity
shared
to
same,
(100%
model,
rDZ).
rDZ
behaviour
.
this
that:
a
twins:
The
(heritability)
and
(there
DZ
A
consideration
understanding
Falconer
from
into
can
play
from
a
role
in
regulating
transcription
suppressed
to
Translation
gene
transportation.
completely
.
Figure
1.15
Gene
expression
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
19
RESEARCH
Essential
Bouchard
and
McGue
(1981)—twin
studies
IQ
than
to
a
for
DZ
of
IQ
twins,
considerable
scores
which
tend
shows
to
be
that
higher
for
intelligence
MZ
is
twins
of
intelligence
%
of
shared
Median
genes
IQ
correlation
inherited
MZ
twins
reared
together
100
0.85
MZ
twins
reared
apart
100
0.67
50
0.58
50
0.45
DZ
estimate
correlation
between:
extent.
Aim
T
o
heritability
understanding
Correlations
✪
on
heritability
of
twins
reared
together
IQ.
Siblings
Method
T
able
reared
together
1.6
Meta-analysis.
One
way
to
process
this
data
is
to
estimate
heritability
Participants
coefcients
The
meta-analysis
included
111
twin
studies
that
heritability
of
intelligence.
Participants
in
these
MZ
and
DZ
twins
(reared
together
and
(reared
together
and
apart),
parents
model.
If
you
of
rMZ
and
rDZ
(reared
together)
use
and
the
plug
the
formula,
you
will
obtain
the
heritability
them
coefcient
apart),
of
siblings
Falconer
studies
into
included
the
looked
values
into
from
and
54%.
their
offspring.
Conclusion
The
study
demonstrates
that
intelligence
is
inherited
to
Procedure
a
Researchers
selected
the
studies
based
on
a
number
considerable
extent
(54%
according
to
the
Falconer
of
estimate).
criteria,
cleaned
the
data
and
calculated
median
correlations
At
between
IQ
scores
of
individuals
of
interest
(for
example,
the
DZ
twins
Results
will
plays
were
only
numerous
focus
on
a
Essential
of
This
results
Scarr
obtained
in
the
study
,
but
is
not
completely
the
inherited.
correlation
Even
between
for
their
shows
improvement
with
of
the
IQ
a
and
Weinberg
(1983)—the
This
inuence
of
not
perfect,
certain
a
role
which
in
the
shows
that
development
the
IQ
of
environment
IQ.
scores,
biological
controversy
contradictory
demonstrate
but
the
parents,
genetic
and
is
Adoption
Study
Results
somewhat
children
Transracial
a
with
The
considerable
correlation
not
pattern
of
the
their
IQ
table
resolved
in
the
environmental
idea
shows
the
results
of
comparing
IQ
in
various
subgroups.
is
adoptive
No
parents.
is
we
understanding
study
results—adopted
higher
it
together,
subset.
RESEARCH
✪
time,
reared
twins).
scores
There
same
MZ
MZ
and
of
Group
Average
additive
IQ
factors.
1
Black
2
Adopted
children
3
Black
4
Adopted
5
Natural
6
Adoptive
reared
black
in
their
own
homes
90
children
106
Aim
T
o
investigate
environmental
malleability
of
intelligence.
children
adopted
white
in
the
rst
12
months
110
children
children
of
the
111
adoptive
parents
119
Participants
This
study
biological
looked
and
at
101
adopted
adoptive
children.
families
Some
of
who
the
had
both
were
adopted
in
adopted
later
.
black
the
rst
The
and
12
some
white.
months
study
took
of
Some
life
place
and
in
children
some
1.7
were
were
As
Minnesota.
can
be
families
needs
to
be
understood
that
back
at
the
time
when
was
conducted,
in
Minnesota
being
black
adopted
average,
coming
background
and
from
being
a
less
poorer
from
the
table,
substantial
the
rst
year
black
increase
of
life,
in
they
children
placed
in
their
If
were
IQ.
they
white
white
children
achieved
the
they
experienced
(although
had
same
level
socio-economic
of
deprivation
in
the
orphanage).
status
educated.
The
table
below
shows
the
results
of
correlational
research.
Method
Correlation
Adoption
between
Value
study
.
Adopted
children
and
their
adoptive
Adopted
children
and
their
biological
parents
0.29
Procedure
All
children
tests.
were
assessed
Correlations
children
and
their
were
on
IQ
and
calculated
parents
(both
school
between
adoptive
parents
0.43
somewhat
contradictory
achievement
the
and
IQ
of
T
able
1.8
biological).
Conclusion
20
Unit
1—Biological
approach
to
a
meant,
year
on
in
a
the
as
study
seen
saw
adopted
It
120
adopted
T
able
children
parents
behaviour
Results
of
at
On
rst.
the
study
the
one
may
seem
hand,
there
was
a
considerable
improvement
hand,
the
parents,
in
the
IQ
correlation
not
of
adopted
was
adoptive
higher
children.
with
the
On
IQ
of
the
other
additive
biological
parents.
will
on
These
of
results
genetics
demonstrate
and
the
environment
idea
in
of
the
additive
Poor-SES
in
IQ
their
=
children,
homes;
be
suggests
factors,
responsive
genetic
to
but
these
that
the
IQ
can
extent
be
to
favourable
inuenced
which
an
inuences
by
individual
depends
factors.
inuence
development
Additive
inuence
environmental
of
influence
IQ.
of
The
genetic
and
environmental
reared
average
90
factors
Poor-SES
children,
adopted;
average
IQ
=
110
IQ
This
increment
explained
by
Explains
IQ
is
This
adoption
higher
variation
genetic
average
Explains
scores
the
is
explained
by
factors
IQ
correlation
of
with
biological
parents
Figure
RESEARCH
Essential
genes
is
the
the
used
responsible
5-HTT
reaction
alleles
of
et
Additive
al
inuence
(2003)—the
of
genetic
5-HTT
gene
to
this
in
molecular
for
specic
which
stressful
gene
is
reacted
help
behaviours.
events.
to
environmental
and
its
factors
role
in
depression
Procedure
genetics
responsible
life
and
gene
understanding
Methods
✪
Caspi
1.16
identify
One
for
life
example
modulating
Individuals
stressful
such
specic
with
events
and
to
short
with
Participants
26.
were
T
wo
assess
assessed
measures
stressful
symptoms
of
life
longitudinally
were
events
used:
a
between
“life
and
an
short
history
interview
to
ages
3
calendar”
assess
depression.
more
Results
depressive
symptoms.
Participants
Aim
T
o
and
investigate
depression
in
the
role
of
response
the
to
5-HTT
stressful
gene
life
in
developing
events.
depressive
a
who
especially
major
one
or
two
reacted
to
stressful
symptoms.
stressful
depression
had
s/s)
by
life
age
For
example,
event
26,
at
but
age
only
if
alleles
of
5-HTT
(s/l
events
with
more
participants
who
had
21
life
tended
they
to
carried
a
develop
short
allele
Participants
of
1,037
children
from
New
5-HTT
.
Zealand.
Conclusion
Method
It
A
longitudinal
study
.
Genetic
mapping
was
used
to
was
concluded
modulating
participants
–
both
–
one
–
both
into
short
short
long
three
alleles
allele
an
the
5-HTT
individual’
s
gene
is
vulnerability
responsible
to
for
stress.
groups:
of
and
alleles
that
divide
5-HTT
one
(s/s)
long
allele
(s/l)
(l/l).
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
21
RESEARCH
Essential
The
✪
the
et
al
(2004)—the
epigenetics
understanding
less
more
Weaver
nurturing
young
transcription
of
vulnerability
to
stress
in
rats
Participants
rats
the
of
receive
from
glucocorticoid
their
mothers,
receptor
Laboratory-bred
rats.
gene
Method
is
inhibited.
This
results
in
fewer
glucocorticoid
receptors
in
A
the
to
brain.
Psychologically
this
means
being
more
combination
of
methods:
vulnerable
–
comparison
–
a
–
an
of
pre-existing
groups
(quasi-experiment)
stress.
rat
adoption
study
Aim
T
o
investigate
nurturing
on
the
epigenetic
vulnerability
to
mechanism
in
the
inuence
experiment,
independent
measures
design
of
stress.
Measuring
–
variables:
genetic
mapping
technology
,
used
to
determine
patterns
Background
There
exist
stable,
naturally
occurring
individual
nurturing
behaviours
of
mother
rats
in
the
methylation
to
measure
rst
week
for
example
licking
and
grooming
(LG)
and
nursing
1.17
to
for
stress,
20
rats
were
minutes.
placed
Blood
in
a
samples
and
after
this
procedure.
were
Corticosterone
and
Comparison
Hippocampal
of
adult
measured
carried
of
out
specic
Results
tissue
offspring
low-LG-ABN
groups
was
of
was
to
obtained
high-LG-ABN
mothers.
most
was
methylation
notably
,
receptor
from
and
Mapping
investigate
genes,
glucocorticoid
Biological
(GR)
Signicantly
higher
methylation
were
blood.
offspring
low-LG-ABN
These
of
rats
also
responses
the
to
Glucocorticoids
(glucose
the
cortex
+
are
mothers.
steroid
hormones.
levels
of
registered
showed
in
more
a
acute
variety
the
stress.
offspring
of
steroid)
of
mothers
ABN
were
Results
high-LG-ABN
dams,
cross-fostered
and
vice
to
low-LG-
showed
methylation
that
GR
behaviour
versa.
depended
binding
of
For
the
nurturing
example,
on
mothers
rats
patterns
biological
of
showed
GR
children
of
stress.
in
that
cell.
receptors,
just
like
organism,
are
anything
lowin
the
to
based
on
a
genetic
the
plan,
same
to
cell
(adoptive)
of
cross-fostered
dams
a
glucocorticoid
(GR)
synthesized
high-LG-ABN
including
the
else
LG-ABN
to
of
regulate
gene
purely
These
mother
.
They
affect
+
class
response
Glucocorticoids
gene.
a
functions,
organism’
s
receptors
study
the
Notes
by
adoption
in
results
Procedure/trial
pre-existing
hormone)
nursing
Method
Rat
sequence
(ABN).
Arched-back
Procedure
response
restrainer
before
(stress
Figure
gene
arched-
taken
back
the
of
Plexiglass
lactation,
of
differences
–
in
of
methylation
the
GR
gene.
as
high-LG-ABN
Corticosterone
is
a
steroid
rats.
hormone
Experiment
A
group
with
of
TSA
rats
the
GR
given
(trichostatin
counteracts
in
was
the
A),
process
Excessive
treatment
a
of
drug
gene
that
methylation
in
methylation
the
mothers
offspring
was
of
of
the
GR
glands.
low-LG-ABN
reversed.
main
the
gene.
In
Responses
normal
to
(same
acute
as
in
stress
the
became
In
produced
many
humans,
performed
of
the
by
the
animals
glucocorticoid
regulation
in
it
adrenal
is
involved
stress
same
the
in
responses.
function
is
cortisol.
high-LG-ABN
group).
T
able
1.9
–
Conclusion
–
Vulnerability
to
stress
factors—methylation
production
–
Such
Unit
stress
methylation
factors
22
of
(such
as
may
be
of
gene
a
hormone
may
be
mother
1—Biological
the
determined
by
responsible
for
the
receptors.
result
of
environmental
nurturing).
approach
to
behaviour
Effects
may
epigenetic
–
of
be
methylation
sustained
their
behaviour
Such
effects
methylation
in
are
in
the
rst
throughout
life
week
and
of
life
keep
(in
rats)
affecting
adulthood.
reversible.
results
in
Using
reducing
drug
treatment
vulnerability
to
to
stop
stress.
1.3.2
Evolutionary
Adaptation—the
demands
of
the
SNOITINIFED
Disgust—one
revulsion
of
caused
the
by
basic
process
to
generation
Massive
has
Evolutionary
theory
of
human
has
better
suit
by
to
and
emotions;
a
feeling
of
organisms
due
to
the
assumption
psychology
to
the
survival-related
to
attempts
explaining
See
applied
on
selection—the
which
are
they
Post-hoc
“modules”,
each
responsible
of
key
mechanism
individuals
adapted
to
the
based
of
on
evolution;
the
extent
to
environment
reasoning—explaining
something
after
it
has
happened
mind
functions
“The
a
to
apply
the
theory
wide
range
the
observed
of
of
modern
model
variations
in
evolution”
behaviours,
but
well,
researchers
one
example
to
illustrate
the
typical
evolutionary
explanations
in
psychology:
the
model
is
accepted.
demonstrated
participants’
ratings
stimuli
in
were
line
of
that
disgust
with
the
In
this
several
in
particular
predictions
response
evolutionary
to
study
,
about
disease-salient
explanation:
we
is
a
response
to
disease-salient
stimuli
that
allows
the
reasoning
organism
behind
of
change
transmission
that
consist
functions
survival
already
different
must
these
UNDERSTANDING
behaviour
.
focus
of
differential
disgust
will
hence
one
Natural
unpleasant
which
generation
serve
behaviour
for
human
modularity—the
evolution
been
to
characteristics
evolved
ESSENTIAL
changing
something
from
heritable
of
for
environment
Evolution—the
of
It
process
explanations
the
to
avoid
disease.
See
Curtis,
Aunger
and
Rabie
emotion
(2004)
of
disgust.
Although
The
study
of
Curtis,
Aunger
and
Rabie
(2004)
is
an
evolutionary
explanatory
of
how
evolutionary
explanations
in
psychology
are
put
test.
Usually
a
phenomenon
universal
case
emotion
for
all
power
range
of
selected
(in
this
the
basic
of
disgust).
explanation
for
this
phenomenon
serves
as
upon
which
several
predictions
F
also
are
made
(if
A
is
B,
C,
D,
E
and
must
be
true).
The
in
an
empirical
study
and
if
all
phenomena,
limitations
of
predictions
observations
t
mass
there
are
must
be
that
modularity
,
environments,
high
for
inherent
often
and
a
lack
kept
of
in
mind:
the
knowledge
lack
of
testability
and
the
about
existence
cross-cultural
differences.
See
“Criticism
of
evolutionary
are
explanations
tested
very
true,
of
then
a
explanations
a
ancestral
model
has
neat
The
assumption
evolutionary
provides
humans
unavoidable
is
and
to
wide
the
psychology
example
in
psychology”
the
THEORY
THE
THEORY
OF
EVOLUTION
–
Better-adapted
surviving
Essential
The
theory
of
evolution
tness,
survival
is
based
of
the
on
the
ttest
ideas
and
Less-adapted
organisms
produce
Evolutionary
range
theory
Darwin
in
modern
based
–
of
explanations
have
been
applied
to
of
evolution
1859
the
and
are
was
was
in
rst
later
main
driven
by
formulated
expanded,
genetics.
following
Organisms
T
oday’
s
by
Charles
accumulating
theory
of
The
the
gradually
evolution
is
principles.
the
need
Organisms
having
to
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Findings
as
analogy
,
theory
to
survive
and
disappear
organisms
generations
different
varying
traits
degrees
Curtis,
are
adapted
(differential
Aunger
and
to
the
study
from
less
the
offspring,
so
population.
their
Genes
survive
and
are
passed
on
of
to
(natural
selection).
protection
from
risk
that
of
the
some
of
evolutionary
to
explain
of
the
powerful
species
in
the
psychology
observed
explanations
explanations
natural
attempts
variation
have
been
in
for
world.
to
apply
human
suggested
the
By
this
behaviour
.
for
a
wide
behaviours.
their
tness).
Rabie
(2004)—evolutionary
–
suggest
provides
variation
Evolutionary
understanding
of
theory
observed
range
environment
evolved
ttest).
a
reproduce.
–
of
the
behaviours.
discoveries
on
of
of
further
The
chances
(survival
natural
better-adapted
wide
higher
offspring
genes
selection.
have
producing
understanding
–
✪
differential
organisms
and
emotion
of
disgust
–
disease.
explanation
Disgust
responses
should
Disgust
should
more
they
as
have
well
as
to
be
protect
their
for
be
disgust
similar
cross-culturally
.
pronounced
the
immune
in
females
system
of
since
their
babies
own.
Aim
–
Hypothetically
,
if
disgust
really
is
a
product
of
evolution,
Disgust
older
following
–
must
Disgust
be
should
(because
become
weaker
reproductive
as
the
potential
individual
becomes
declines).
true.
be
stronger
in
response
to
stimuli
that
are
The
associated
should
the
with
aim
of
the
study
was
to
test
these
predictions.
disease.
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
23
–
Participants
Volunteers
was
over
who
completed
77,000
people
a
survey
from
165
online.
The
total
Ratings
of
declined
sample
disgust
with
in
response
to
disease-salient
stimuli
age.
countries.
Method
Correlational
study
.
Procedure
Data
was
Science
gathered
website.
demographic
Then
a
they
scale
digitally
pair
1
survey
5.
placed
participants
asked
to
such
as
rate
20
to
These
manipulated
was
a
questions,
were
from
in
First,
age
and
the
the
BBC
asked
and
of
were
the
other
a
series
country
photographs
photographs
stimuli—one
disease-salient
on
were
of
for
of
origin.
disgust
similar
photographs
one
less
on
pairs
in
of
the
salient.
Results
All
four
predictions
formulated
by
the
researchers
found
Figure
1.18
Aunger
and
Examples
Rabie
of
photographs
used
in
the
study
by
Curtis,
(2004)
support.
–
Ratings
were
of
disgust
higher
stimuli
that
salient.
For
rated
as
than
were
in
of
digitally
example,
more
response
ratings
a
disease-salient
towards
manipulated
plate
disgusting
to
disgust
of
than
to
be
less
organic-looking
a
plate
of
Conclusion
stimuli
similar
blue
disease-
uid
uid
Results
of
disgust
is
stimuli
was
study
that
reduces
Results
evolutionary
were
consistent
across
cultures.
correctness
four
–
based
the
risk
the
evolutionary
response
of
to
explanation:
disease-salient
disease.
explanation
is
a
model.
The
model
is
t
into
chemical.
observational
–
supported
biologically
that
An
looked
the
a
Results
were
more
pronounced
in
the
sub-sample
data,
of
this
predictions
and
if
model
it
ts
well,
increases.
formulated
on
the
our
condence
Since
basis
in
of
this
the
in
study
model
the
all
were
of
supported,
one
can
say
that
the
evolutionary
explanation
of
females.
disgust
CRITICISM
Essential
✪
OF
of
inherent
of
mass
explanations
limitations,
modularity
knowledge
the
about
existence
IN
most
and
notably
,
linearity
ancestral
of
psychology
of
Explanation
Massive
neuroplasticity
If
be
modularity
we
accept
we
also
that
The
know
but
assumptions
lack
is
the
function.
responsible
modularity
.
number
of
there
psychology
are
of
large
testability
to
in
so
unjustied
a
great
inherent
psychology
.
unavoidable,
avoid
has
limitations
explanations
lack
test.
one
in
These
needs
explanatory
all
limitations
to
power
,
evolutionary
take
are
them
by
into
and
account
generalizations.
differences.
survival-related
may
a
development,
environments,
cross-cultural
Massive
versus
the
have
the
PSYCHOLOGY
Evolutionary
in
Limitation
modularity
EXPLANATIONS
understanding
Evolutionary
and
EVOLUTIONARY
stood
for
the
brain
that
idea
For
quick
mind
on
brain
the
mind
one
detection
evolved
the
that
example,
the
of
whole
and
its
consists
such
potential
is
a
demonstrates
certain
may
enemies,
product
different
of
module
parts
of
and
to
each
responsible
so
evolution,
evolved
remarkable
“modules”,
be
of
which
feelings
serves
of
a
disgust,
particular
another
one
on.
we
serve
for
must
also
different
neuroplasticity
,
and
accept
the
idea
survival-related
this
contradicts
of
massive
functions.
the
idea
of
However
,
massive
modularity
.
Speculations
the
about
environment
Adaptation
theory
our
is
T
estability
is
knowledge
Evolutionary
variation
Observed
24
Unit
of
to
some
have
environment,
knowledge
environments
basic
very
in
which
difcult
an
about
our
environments
so
the
human
become
such
are
in
order
to
explain
environment
ancestors
to
behaviour
impossible
to
to
phenomenon
explanations
variation
thought
questionable.
explanations
approach
often
existing
evolutionary
so
that
and
already
weaken
phenomena
explanations
evolutionary
1—Biological
are
variations
different
for
evolutionary
Limitations
the
must
reasoning—taking
cultural
in
observed
1.10
of
adaptation
one
explanations
post-hoc
evolved
T
able
always
evolution,
in
a
change
which
existed
is
such
very
a
in
behaviour
change
limited.
using
occurred.
Much
of
this
the
However
,
knowledge
speculative.
uses
Cultural
of
is
perfectly
be
of
test.
and
Critics
behaviour
.
plausible,
universal
(such
claim
designing
as
One
but
if
the
basic
a
that
evolutionary
believable
can
claim
that
cross-cultural
emotion
psychology
explanation
different
differences
of
disgust),
for
it.
cultures
are
then
1.4
The
role
human
SNOITINIFED
Animal
ESSENTIAL
Value
A
fully
being
of
of
the
research
organism
some
enables
with
the
study
to
only)
of
human
researchers
of
to
study
generalizing
humans
animal
the
models
animal
human
ecological
model
includes
behaviour
that
the
is
species
being
that
is
type
of
experimental
manipulation
used
in
modelled
research.
models:
what
extent
brain
parts
of
of
other
animals
biologically
similar
to
professional
the
parts
species.
human
the
brain
that
of
species.
is
of
the
Some
brain
human
brain
researchers
are
However
,
structure
of
primary
human
and
resemble
believe
equivalent
is
some
have
connected
importance,
animal
be
function
may
animals
biologically
major
very
brain
are
similar
to
and
different.
advantage
possibility
to
to
the
that
claimed
other
that
brain
similar
See
to
that
parts
of
although
it
of
carry
what
with
animals,
and
the
brain
parts
out
multiple
their
extent
models
experiments
in
often
across
This
HL
are
regulated
to
making
ethical
justied
potential
pain
research
inicted
getting
approval
from
independent
on
the
review
See
“Ethical
considerations
in
animal
research”
of
Examples
research
been
are
et
al
of
discussed
(1984),
in
this
can
be
studies
using
unit
Ferguson
studies
in
research
et
are
al
used
psychology
animal
(2000),
to
and
models
Lashley
and
illustrate
ethical
that
(1929),
have
Weaver
both
already
Merzenich
the
et
al
(2004).
value
considerations
in
of
animal
animal
is
These
studies
also
cover
all
parts
of
the
biological
highly
generations.
generalizability
Most
to
behaviour
(brain
and
behaviour
,
hormones
and
The
and
behaviour
,
genetics
and
behaviour).
humans,
TIP
extension
Combining
Parts
are
around
monitoring
Examples
These
animal
APA.
how
humans?”
working
environments,
disadvantages
EXAM
research
the
of
is
some
structurally
,
“To
as
many
pheromones
major
animal
such
revolve
carefully
approach
controlled
in
bodies
choices,
research.
the
and
models”
the
models
The
“Advantages
humans?
teams.
animal
See
animal
denition”
are
many
issues.
with
considerations
considerations
considerations
Structurally
ethical
working
and
by
T
o
and
of
See
Ethical
“Animal
validity
disadvantages
Ethical
the
understanding
whose
aspects
intention
(HL
in
UNDERSTANDING
identied
used,
which
organism
results
living
resembles
behaviour
,
animal
behaviour
model—a
behaviour
this
of
of
these
includes
gives
biological
three
you
topics
nine
approach
to
that
potential
can
areas
behaviour
be
applied
from
a.
to
which
Brain
and
any
of
exam
the
three
questions
behaviour
parts
may
b.
be
of
the
biological
approach
to
behaviour
.
asked.
Hormones
c.
and
pheromones
Genetics
and
behaviour
and
behaviour
1.
The
2.
Whether
into
3.
value
research
in
can
psychology
provide
insight
1a
1b
1c
2a
2b
2c
3a
3b
3c
behaviour
considerations
there
psychology
There
is
are
a
is
in
animal
lot
is
considerable
determined
of
overlap
investigating,
Specics
With
models
research
1.11
However
,
we
animal
animal
human
Ethical
T
able
of
this
may
in
differ
,
mind,
also
brain
but
we
overlap
mostly
the
between
major
common
arguments
–
consider
the
ethical
–
discuss
research
a,
these
extent
b
and
areas.
which
c.
Ethical
hormones
arguments
Areas
to
or
will
and
2
are
from
the
The
same
very
similar
research
considerations
genetics.
be
1
ndings
in
animal
concerns
because
using
such
research
the
value
the
value
models
will
of
be
can
of
be
similar
animal
animal
models
applied
to
regardless
models
in
in
humans.
of
what
psychology
.
same.
will:
consider
main
in
the
structure,
–
examples
by
of
related
to
considerations
animal
research
in
the
in
value
of
animal
psychology
animal
models
research
(in
that
allow
will
in
psychology
(in
general)
general)
you
to
apply
these
general
arguments
to
concrete
studies.
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
25
ANIMAL
MODELS:
Essential
A
✪
is
fully
being
DEFINITION
understanding
identied
used,
the
animal
human
–
model
includes
behaviour
that
the
is
species
being
what
that
the
causal
factor
that
is
tested
in
animal
model
is
a
concept
that
refers
to
using
to
test
human
a
certain
cause-effect
behaviour
.
This
term
a
hypothesis
is
often
about
used
for
example,
you
can
see
mouse
mentions
of
of
stress
to
denote
human
the
general
behaviour
.
idea
However
,
that
to
mice
fully
it
is
important
to
include
the
idea
developing
a
rhesus
monkey
can
be
identify
used
an
using
of
that
depression
exposure
depression
separation
rhesus
(read:
to
using
stress
mice
increases
to
the
in
humans)
model
following
monkeys
to
of
cognitive
investigate
if
delay
separation
to
attachment
gures
will
cause
delays
in
cognitive
animal
development,
model,
model
the
“mouse
from
model
what
a
(read:
models”
(or
somewhat
–
loosely
,
investigated
animal
risk
certain
being
tested).
example:
investigate
research
is
being
research.
–
An
factor
is
modelled
For
and
causal
hypothesis
and
generalizing
these
ndings
to
information:
humans).
–
what
animal
–
what
behaviour
TO
WHAT
Essential
It
✪
are
has
very
level
chunking
the
to
the
brain
ANIMALS
BIOLOGICALL
Y
SIMILAR
the
in
new
animals
structures
makes
a
some
structures
of
should
claim
that
additions
memory
.
and
are
parts
be
the
on
similarity
some
may
some
be
the
can
is
and
humans
for
the
use
the
it
is
the
although
the
theories
have
human
suggested
that
the
human
brain
is
of
the
evolution
of
the
species
and
that
evolution
brain
on
structures
top
found
in
lower
is
similar
of
the
were
more
animals.
This
added
primitive
suggests
in
the
that
the
chimpanzee
can
units).
“chunk”.
can
B,
capacity
of
short-term
BMW
a
XBOX
will
chimpanzee
Arguably
,
how
W,
X,
B,
O
and
makes
Hence,
a
same
primates,
X.
is
seven
two
memory
the
chimpanzee
and
memory
only
works.
a
in
without
unlike
train
represent
chunking
memory
has
remember
However
,
Y
ou
M,
functions
short-term
the
same,
units
units
to
However
,
of
for
a
qualitative
in
humans
and
chimpanzees
short-term
may
be
similar
,
but
it
is
genuinely
process
structures
seven
to
it
is
a
not
“human”
units
A
as
for
to
of
2007)
such
being.
memory
reection
able
sequence
difference
Some
number
the
psychological
(Premack
chimpanzees.
letters
information
difference.
comparing
humans
(about
are
recognize
of
and
rehearsing
separate
of
in
HUMANS?
example
humans
similar
,
rest
TO
animals
limit
our
example
to
brain
equivalent.
Although
connected
our
changed
An
humans
of
animals,
have
fundamentally
.
short-term
in
An
since
functions
functions
these
that
used
modelled
that
researchers
and
structures
way
brain
suggested
some
deceitful,
brain
being
ARE
psychological
psychological
of
is
being
understanding
been
However
,
be
is
EXTENT
similar
our
species
equivalent.
of
that
can
human
be
brain
Human
very
to
that
of
animals.
Chimpanzee
However
,
complex
evolution
than
of
simply
the
brain
building
may
newer
have
been
structures
more
on
top
of
the
Gorilla
older
ones.
Premack
(2007)
suggested
that
researchers
should
compare
Orangutan
psychological
claimed
that
functions
we
as
should
well
focus
as
on
brain
structure.
nding
He
also
dissimilarities
Gibbon
between
animals
and
humans
so
that
we
better
understand
Macaque
the
limitations
of
generalizing
from
animal
studies.
Figure
ADVANTAGES
Essential
✪
is
The
the
AND
DISADVANTAGES
OF
WORKING
WITH
understanding
major
advantage
possibility
to
carry
of
out
multiple
with
animal
models
experiments
to
controlled
environments,
often
across
major
disadvantages
validity
and
are
generalizability
ethical
of
include
–
In
the
some
and
26
the
advantages
ways
humans
working
1—Biological
MODELS
animal
Studies
with
to
example,
behaviour
may
be
generalizable
animal
many
models
drugs
have
were
produced
rst
useful
discovered
in
results.
animal
humans,
and
with
animal
models
Some
allows
tested
animals
on
animals
This
are
means
approach
biologically
that
to
some
behaviour
(such
researchers
generation
and
identical.
brain
humans
later
.
issues.
following.
genetically
Unit
of
animal
in
–
Some
and
generations.
studies
ecological
of
brain
humans.
For
The
Human
ANIMAL
aspects
working
–
highly
1.19
genetic
to
as
to
mice)
see
generation.
research.
have
how
This
a
short
behaviour
is
lifespan,
changes
especially
which
from
helpful
in
–
In
animal
variables
research
more
example,
to
the
selectively
it
is
strictly
possible
than
“knockout”
switch
off
in
to
control
research
technique
one
of
the
confounding
with
humans.
allows
genes
(when
For
in
researchers
in
the
a
developing
hierarchy:
apes,
then
new
rst
drugs)
mice,
then
tests
are
often
mammals,
conducted
then
great
humans.
DNA
–
Many
studies
that
are
successful
in
animals
fail
to
The
reasons
are
usually
achieve
sequence.
the
–
Animal
subjects
are
easily
accessible,
easy
to
handle
and
unclear
.
manage.
85
of
Some
of
the
disadvantages
include
the
As
discussed
(Premack
2007),
even
results
Such
different
them
are
similar
biologically
,
if
they
was
worked
humans.
the
vaccines
animals
for
case
with
worked
humans
potential
well
for
(Bailey
HIV
treatments:
primates,
but
none
2008).
Animal
studies
can
still
tend
to
be
strictly
controlled
laboratory
and
experiments,
humans
with
following.
–
–
same
be
which
creates
issues
with
ecological
different
validity
.
There
is
a
possibility
that
animals
would
behave
psychologically
.
differently
–
Successful
trials
from
animal
research
still
need
to
with
humans
to
be
sure
that
results
their
ETHICAL
by
a
matter
of
fact,
CONSIDERATIONS
Essential
✪
As
Ethical
IN
in
biomedical
ANIMAL
There
are
ethical
considerations
professional
bodies
in
such
as
the
research
APA.
are
Most
Whenever
regulated
designed
revolve
around
making
justied
carefully
animals,
and
monitoring
Whenever
potential
pain
inicted
on
approval
from
independent
review
on
every
of
step
guidelines
Psychological
conducting
the
are
Association
If
a
Justied
Association
research
research
with
process.
summarized
below
(APA)
has
animals
Some
of
the
(American
published
that
–
regulate
Any
scientic
The
study
,
it
and
researchers
used
is
this
should
reared
wild.
the
Obtaining
–
All
be
with
must
animals
rst
on
test
the
themselves.
observed
is
be
not
to
be
in
necessary
distress
for
the
or
purposes
of
euthanized.
study
should
purpose.
or
chosen
The
It
benet
be
clearly
should
justied
either
research
Committee
humans
or
other
Inicting
BPS
species
must
be
the
best
choice
for
not
be
released
proposals
prior
to
must
be
submitted
conducting
the
to
the
study
.
guidelines
British
Psychological
Society
(BPS)
published
a
policy
the
required
number
of
animals
must
be
Psychological
Society
2012)
on
the
use
of
animals
which
is
based
on
three
principles
(three
Rs):
in
when
no
used.
replacement
(animals
should
only
be
used
exists)
pain
–
to
be
assumed
that
whatever
procedures
reduction
humans
would
cause
pain
in
animals
conducting
species-specic
the
study
characteristics
must
of
be
familiar
normal
be
minimal
necessary
must
ensured
number
of
animals
used)
too.
–
Researchers
(the
cause
must
the
must
our
animals.
alternative
in
laboratory
with
increase
–
pain
the
purpose.
minimum
has
in
approval
animal
psychology
–
be
animal
pain
Animals
(British
It
must
discomfort.
choices
animal
research
–
to
into
The
–
animal
major
Psychological
2012).
knowledge
–
reasonable,
research
Ethics
a
procedures
minimizes
guidelines
American
guidelines
–
laboratory
that
teams.
the
The
way
stimuli
chronic
APA
a
the
–
getting
possible,
in
research
painful
choices,
to
ethical
–
considerations
related
animals.
RESEARCH
–
animal
with
research
understanding
considerations
habitat.
are
experimentation
generalizable.
natural
be
–
replicated
in
renement
(it
procedures
cause
be
that
experimental
with
behaviour
minimal
necessary
distress
in
the
so
animals).
that
or
they
will
EXAMPLES
Essential
✪
able
to
tell
when
the
animal
is
stressed
OF
of
discussed
(1984),
Weaver
studies
can
models
in
research.
approach
RESEARCH
USING
ANIMAL
MODELS
understanding
Examples
been
be
unhealthy
.
be
research
in
this
et
al
used
to
pheromones
unit
to
and
behaviour
Examples
animal
models
that
Lashley
(1929),
Merzenich
and
illustrate
studies
and
are
(2004)
psychology
These
using
Ferguson
both
ethical
also
cover
(brain
behaviour
,
and
the
et
al
value
(2000).
of
considerations
all
parts
of
behaviour
,
genetics
and
have
the
already
et
al
These
animal
in
animal
biological
hormones
In
this
using
all
unit
from
you
animal
this
have
models.
arguments
in
this
across
These
whether
into
behaviour
,
animal
and
several
studies
topic—the
psychology
,
human
unit
come
can
value
research
ethical
research
be
of
used
animal
can
studies
to
support
models
provide
considerations
in
insight
in
animal
research.
and
behaviour).
Biological
approach
to
behaviour
27
Research
Lashley
study
Description
(1929)
Removing
localized.
Merzenich
et
al
(1984)
Investigating
See
Weaver
et
al
(2004)
“1.1.1
the
genetic
et
al
(2000)
T
able
of
the
cortex
investigate
where
the
memory
of
the
maze
is
representations
of
the
hand
in
adult
owl
monkeys
(amputation
of
ngers).
the
way
epigenetic
their
brain
mechanism
responds
to
of
how
stress
nurturing
later
in
life.
received
See
by
“1.3.1
rats
from
Genes
their
and
mothers
behaviour
,
similarities”
See
the
role
“1.2.1
of
oxytocin
The
in
inuence
social
of
memory
hormones
by
studying
on
oxytocin
gene
knockout
mice
behaviour”
1.12
Coverage
of
topics
Brain
and
behaviour
Hormones
and
Lashley
(1929)
Merzenich
et
Weaver
al
et
Ferguson
T
able
to
Localization”
cortical
Investigating
models.
portions
“1.1.1
Localization”
Investigating
affects
Ferguson
various
See
et
and
Genetics
and
behaviour
X
al
(1984)
X
(2004)
al
pheromones
behaviour
(2000)
X
X
X
X
1.13
Insight
into
human
T
o
what
into
Lashley
(1929)
behaviour
Lashley’
s
with
the
extent
human
the
can
used
example,
study
with
participants
was
functions
be
can
ethical
considerations
provide
an
insight
Ethical
considerations
behaviour?
experiments
human
study
can
and
insightful
be
to
and
cannot
ethical
because
widely
explain
Sperry
rats
for
it
replicated
However
,
suggested
distributed
ndings
be
reasons.
in
from
the
that
brain.
human
some
This
studies
idea
(for
Rats
in
was
performed
the
that
this
purposes
results
et
al
(1984)
Neuroplasticity
observed
in
experiment
(that
in
limited
effect
to
require
case
with
hypotheses
human
not
be
well,
possible
for
animal
people
be
models
this
with
made
sense
in
test
case
on
area
the
used
to
Such
studies.
the
research
outweigh
cause-effect
insight
into
animals
and
behaviour
.
et
al
(2004)
This
research
many
Potentially
of
bad
one
is
it
is
can
so,
effects
led
studies
that
can
to
similar
of
birth
By
also
drugs
hypotheses
in
this
obtain
study
the
on
a
cognitive
epigenetic.
will
this
pill”).
narrow
harmful
tube
for
were
and
and
that
irreversible
ngers).
also
The
effect
technique
involved
carefully
approved
must
of
scrutinized
if
the
potential
make
during
the
study
laboratory-bred
genotype.
required
Stress
that
the
the
used,
sure
by
gains
that
procedure
for
the
tests
obtaining
where
restrained
rats,
as
were
the
a
a
special
sample
animals
their
in
Epigenetic
were
movements
increased
tests
of
cells
placed
were
levels
of
in
also
stress
hormones.
reverse
ingenious
human
If
brain.
be
end
necessary
the
effects
of
response
only
the
the
experimental
anaesthetized
after
that
for
research
lives.
from
that
with
to
of
their
is
of
brain.
must
and
ensure
Committee.
damaging
Experimenters
properly
care
of
Ethics
invasive
the
proposals
costs.
the
benets
animals
surgery
must
necessary
procedure,
of
cortical
into
analogy
,
be
many
the
are
potential
a
invasive
studies
absolutely
(amputation
the
invasive—they
that
“anti-bad-mother
construct
way
lives
Committee
taken
Animals
to
behaviour
.
very
had
were
suggests
poverty
may
invent
an
It
gives
human
epigenetic.
effects
(imagine
test
be
it
about
useful.
example,
we
researchers
to
very
may
for
potentially
these
has
also
suggest
because
hypotheses
parenting
development,
is
insightful
interesting
from
a
electrodes
Ethics
is
number
which
measure
inserting
is
duration
Weaver
used
animals’
that
because
Such
experimental
obtained
research
Cause-and-
further
is
brain.
suffering
necessary
manipulation
reasons
this
injury
.
provides
This
is
direct
impairment
from
helps
a
ethical
research
of
damage
but
physical
human
cannot
in
structural
as
So
studies
and
to
brain
producing
subjects).
inferences
Research
response
human
would
would
human
in
the
of
the
harmed
their
research,
justify
approval
Merzenich
of
were
on
degree
minimum
Gazzaniga).
study
This
research
subjects.
Such
the
studies
Ethics
must
be
must
be
carefully
Committee.
accountable
justied
and
If
approval
is
for
humane
handling
approved
obtained,
of
by
researchers
the
animal
subjects.
Ferguson
et
(2000)
al
As
a
role
knockout
of
temporarily
T
able
28
study
,
oxytocin
limited
to
effects
can
in
increase
provides
the
short-term
be
it
behaviour
.
level
effects.
studied
over
In
of
a
very
we
oxytocin,
With
the
direct
humans
animal
lifespan
of
1.14
Unit
1—Biological
approach
to
behaviour
so
test
can
to
the
research
models
the
is
these
animal.
Mice
were
fostered.
only
not
specially
In
lactate,
Ethical
fact,
so
bred
female
they
cannot
considerations
Weaver
et
al
in
(2004).
this
study
.
oxytocin
that
foster
apply
They
gene
were
knockout
also
cross-
mice
do
offspring.
in
this
study
are
similar
to
2
COGNITIVE
APPROACH
TO
B E H AV I O U R
T
opics
2.1
Cognitive
processing
2.1.1
Models
of
2.1.2
Schema
2.1.3
Thinking
2.3
Emotion
memory
2.3.1
Reliability
of
and
cognitive
Reconstructive
2.2.2
Biases
in
and
are
while
same
the
of
Cognitive
held
in
a
time
to
research
repeat
a
performing
number
memory
technique
sequence
the
of
where
Phonological
sounds
experimental
phenomenon
task
of
task
of
units
of
information
that
SNOITINIFED
are
either
exposed
of
the
technique
can
be
held
Heuristic
simultaneously
same
in
amount
a
or
of
memory
model
different
to
two
sets
new
time
(HL
only)
for
which
they
more
are
effect—a
several
words
words
Recency
that
likely
to
presented
memory
have
be
a
similar
confused
pattern
in
memory
,
visually
memory
on
the
phenomenon
list
are
where
remembered
the
better
from
the
effect—a
middle
of
several
words
memory
the
list
on
the
list
phenomenon
are
where
remembered
the
better
than
information
words
from
model
or
theory
the
Word
length
middle
of
the
list
in
a
certain
process
of
effect—a
memory
phenomenon
where
that
estimated
capacity
of
short-term
memory
depends
area
on
cognitive
are
effect—a
stimuli
store
(theory)—a
hypotheses
Memory—a
world
of
modalities
the
inspires
digital
where
last
Duration—the
when
Primacy
research
than
stimuli,
the
can
store
technique—a
participants
in
similarity
where
articulation
rst
Dual
processing
processing
even
be
processes
memory
required
Capacity—the
cognitive
decision-making
suppression—a
participants
at
on
processes
thinking
Models
Articulatory
emotion
memory
Cognitive
2.1.1
of
decision-making
2.2.1
2.1
cognition
inuence
theory
2.4
2.2
and
The
encoding,
storing
the
length
of
the
words
on
the
list
presented
to
the
and
participants
retrieving
information
Parsimonious
observations
ESSENTIAL
The
is
a
retrieve
psychology
only
a
model
limited
that
can
number
explain
of
a
lot
of
components
UNDERSTANDING
multi-store
Memory
and
model—a
with
basic
memory
cognitive
information.
to
describe
model:
process
There
human
exist
to
many
memory
.
memory
theory
used
A
encode,
models
store
of
the
stores.
latency
interference
in
This
conclusion
effect
task.
(but
See
not
is
the
Glanzer
based
on
primacy
and
the
disappearance
effect)
Cunitz
after
an
(1966)
well-known
Evaluation
classic
is
the
multi-store
model
of
memory
by
Atkinson
and
The
Shiffrin
(1968),
that
states
the
model
has
been
oversimplication
•
Memory
consists
of
three
separate
components:
store,
short-term
memory
(STM)
store
and
memory
(L
TM)
Information
ows
At
there
is
a
if
from
sensory
memory
to
certain
See
conditions
Atkinson
are
and
met:
attention
Shiffrin
and
the
model
is
quite
simple,
there
are
testing,
such
as
the
idea
that
stores
are
in
fact
separate
or
the
necessary
idea
that
STM
and
to
sufcient
LTM.
As
a
for
result,
the
no
transfer
single
of
in
its
entirety:
a
collective
effort
(1974).
can
test
for
the
the
researchers
example
is
the
simplicity
of
understood
the
The
multi-store
model
of
model
and
memory
heuristic,
and
it
prompted
many
was
insightful
It
is
to
widely
accepted
elaborate
the
on
today
,
certain
but
other
multi-store
components.
model
of
See
memory”.
memory
memory
model:
model
was
theory
proposed
It
was
built
to
further
by
Baddeley
and
elaborate
structure
in
of
the
STM.
The
structure
model
of
includes
working
four
memory
sketchpad,
the
phonological
loop,
(the
the
task.
the
study
of
Glanzer
and
Cunitz
(1966)
notion
that
STM
and
L
TM
are
two
executive
and
the
episodic
buffer).
See
Baddeley
that
and
supported
between
is
central
An
memory
be
the
visuospatial
needed
to
information
study
by
of
working
components
model
needs
rehearsal
on
from
and
used
working
Hitch
is
it
the
The
three
time,
many
The
require
power
.
studies.
are
“Evaluation
that
same
rote
Research
aspects
of
some
(1968)
models
Although
reasons
explain
long-term
research
rehearsal.
the
trade-off
explanatory
parsimonious
memory
for
to
store.
its
•
failing
long-
that
term
and
sensory
phenomena.
memory
criticized
following.
Hitch
(1974)
separate
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
29
(Murray
Research
The
the
•
working
multi-store
the
•
memory
model
phonological
and
Hull
in
the
word
model
did
explained
not.
some
Examples
similarity
effect
ndings
that
are:
(discovered
by
length
that
and
visual
within
working
1964)
effect
(Baddeley
,
Baddeley
,
Buchanan
stores
Conrad
1968;
Thomson,
auditory
working
memory
Lewis,
1975).
Vallar
This
information
memory
.
1984;
evidence
See
is
Baddeley
,
supports
processed
“Support
in
for
the
idea
separate
the
model”.
Thomson,
Evaluation
Buchanan
Both
of
these
the
1975).
effects
articulatory
could
be
rehearsal
explained
that
both
effects
suppression
used
and
material
THEORY:
ATKINSON
Essential
understanding
✪
as
The
multi-store
consisting
of
three
is
introduction
was
SHIFFRIN
the
stores
further
when
presented
presents
separate
It
disappear
AND
model
the
component.
demonstrated
is
by
articulatory
it
is
memory
more
difcult
This
to
increased
conduct
MULTI-STORE
memory
and
the
process
from
one
store
model
complicated
“Evaluation
(1968)—THE
of
working
but
memory
.
visually
structure
The
of
•
short-term
•
long-term
tests
working
MODEL
OF
memory
memory
greater
the
complexity
empirical
the
has
than
explanatory
multi-store
means
of
the
memory
power
,
model
that
it
is
model.
of
more
See
model”.
MEMORY
(STM)
(L
TM)
store
store.
as
Characteristics
a
unidirectional
ow
of
information
to
Each
of
these
components
is
characterized
by:
another.
Components
In
this
model
human
memory
consists
of
three
•
duration
•
capacity
•
components
sensory
memory
(how
conditions
store
(“stores”):
•
(how
to
long
information
much
information
necessary
the
next
for
Duration
memory
This
but
information
Capacity
depends
is
visual
very
memory
(STM)
Conditions
depends
but
generally
seconds;
the
the
2–5
modality
,
Everything
The
has
potentially
duration
2.1
The
multi-store
eld
Attention
on
is
of
does
the
modality
,
longer
than
increases
7±2
been
a
established;
than
human
chunks
1956).
A
of
letters
C,
six
turned
The
limit
virtually
life.
is
a
to
in
this
store)
kept
there)
move
from
units,
A,
N,
into
into
has
for
D,
L
one
one
not
stay
longer
example,
and
word
E
and
this
unit
of
attended
but
to,
moves
makes
it
to
information
short-term
and
eventually
the
to
store
memory).
(it
trace
gets
memory
the
consolidated
information
long-term
may
a
is
next
the
memory
can
and
units
in
required
decay
Rehearsal
(Miller
meaningful
information
established;
the
of
combined
way
information
chunk
combination
the
STM.
longer
of
not
short-term
no
not
(if
for
rehearsal
duration
limit
perceptual
seconds
be
(LTM)
the
information
this
T
able
kept
be
the
for
be
memory
in
to
second
1
stimuli.
This
30
on
short:
stimuli,
auditory
Long-term
can
one.
move
Short-term
be
store
Component
Sensory
can
enters
memory).
chunk.
N/A
been
potentially
it
is
unlimited.
model
REHEARSAL
Process
According
to
the
multi-store
model,
information
travels
REHEARSAL
ATTENTION
SENSORY
from
sensory
memory
through
STM
to
L
TM.
Rehearsal
(that
STM
STORE
LTM
STORE
STORE
RETRIEVAL
is,
mental
repetition
of
the
transferring
information
indenitely
.
However
,
stimulus)
into
L
TM,
is
the
where
main
it
can
means
be
of
stored
RESPONSE
not
all
information
that
is
stored
Figure
L
TM
is
easily
2.1
Multi-store
memory
model
retrievable.
Source:
https://ceirepsych.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/multi-store-
model-atkinson-and-shiffrin-1968/
30
Unit
OUTPUT
in
2—Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
SUPPORT
FOR
Essential
the
aspects
that
entirety
cannot
for
a
of
a
of
memor y
complex
tested
model
require
research
different
MULTI-STORE
MODEL
OF
MEMORY
Some
understanding
Although
✪
THE
be
simple,
testing.
tested
mental
includes
separately
in
from
The
in
programme.
a
many
All
a
all
Just
like
model
that
of
is
other
research
must
task
model
number
the
memory
•
rehearsal
•
can
further
development
of
the
Essential
✪
The
Glanzer
and
Cunitz
(1966,
that
disappearance
inclusion
of
recency
of
a
memory
stores
separate
necessary
from
STM
information
one
model
of
memory
stores
being
and
to
ow:
the
process?
a
reverse
example
of
a
research
each
for
other
the
transfer
L
TM
from
be
from
sufcient
direction
there
model
experiment
model
sensory
suggests
memory
to
that
L
TM,
is
the
study
2)—primacy
of
study
that
Glanzer
(partially)
and
and
recency
Cunitz
supported
(1966)
effect
ller
effect
task
but
results
not
in
primacy
effect
0
60
the
idea
memory
stores.
that
STM
and
LTM
are
two
separate
TCERROC
supports
investigate
the
serial
interference
from
tendency
recall
to
a
position
ller
the
activity
.
rst
and
effect
with
Serial
position
the
last
and
items
NOITROPORP
Aim
T
o
it
but
70
understanding
fact
multi-store
model.
the
RESEARCH
of
the
to
One
inform
in
of
are:
being
direction
and
of
information
ows
combined
aspects
testing
the
be
studies,
the
•
of
many
of
require
•
model
must
be
its
a
generate
predictions
research
in
study—it
any
that
many
multi-store
aspects
series
are
whole
the
these
this
there
single
process,
predictions.
information
is
without
effect
on
a
list
is
the
better
50
10
40
30
30
than
items
in
the
middle.
Method
20
Experiment;
repeated
measures
design.
1
5
10
15
Participants
POSITION
46
army-enlisted
men.
Figure
Source:
Procedure
A
2.2
series
of
15-word
hearing
all
the
lists
words
was
on
the
read
list
out
to
participants.
participants
were
Serial
Glanzer
position
and
effect
Cunitz
(1966:
358)
After
required
to
Conclusion
do
a
free-recall
task.
There
were
three
conditions:
The
•
a
free-recall
task
immediately
after
hearing
the
words
results
particular
the
•
a
the
activity
(counting
number
same
ller
for
10
activity
,
out
loud
backwards
seconds),
but
for
30
then
free
from
•
STM
•
Information
participant
conditions.
was
given
15
lists,
The
order
of
the
dependent
variable
recalled,
(DV)
separately
5
for
each
of
the
was
of
memory
,
in
was
word
on
the
list
(so
you
the
each
can
are
two
moves
separate
from
STM
memory
to
L
TM
if
stores.
it
The
duration
decays
if
it
is
is
rehearsed,
not.
proportion
of
the
say
that
of
STM
is
around
30
seconds.
participants
hear
words
on
the
list
one
by
one,
they
random.
15
of
start
rehearsing
them
subvocally.
As
they
are
getting
words
to
the
middle
of
the
list
it
becomes
impossible
positions
there
repeat
all
the
words,
so
the
rst
words
on
the
list
were
are
15
model
the
to
of
multi-store
ideas.
seconds.
conditions
for
L
TM
gradually
closer
correctly
and
but
may
The
the
recall
As
3
into
following
a
•
Each
well
the
list
ller
random
•
t
on
repeated
more
often,
and
they
enter
LTM.
That
is
DVs).
why
primacy
interference
effect
does
not
disappear
even
after
the
task.
Results
•
In
the
condition
of
the
serial
effect
the
•
In
(participants
start
also
the
at
list)
but
a
ller
effect
were
and
the
30-second
with
the
recency
task,
could
better
ller
than
both
the
task
the
the
words
(participants
end
of
primacy
the
10-second
list).
so
list
may
entered
when
why
effect
disappeared—more
in
at
were
the
participants
presentation
primacy
remembering
at
When
aspects
observed:
effect
words
effect
condition
be
at
recency
remembering
condition
stayed,
the
of
better
the
without
position
in
be
of
easy
STM.
interference
to
With
rehearsal
recency
recall
the
is
list,
words
the
last
remember
the
several
because
presence
suppressed,
effect
immediately
disappears
of
in
they
the
these
the
after
words
the
on
the
have
just
interference
traces
decay.
condition
task
That
with
is
the
task.
condition.
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
31
EVALUATION
Essential
✪
The
been
THE
MULTI-STORE
MODEL
OF
MEMORY
•
understanding
model
is
criticized
memory
OF
parsimonious
for
its
and
simplicity
heuristic,
and
inability
but
to
it
has
explain
It
model
pay
enough
the
three
The
only
an
emphasizes
attention
only
explains
from
the
sensory
information
can
ow
of
information
memory
also
ow
to
in
L
TM.
the
in
Arguably
,
opposite
been
structure
to
how
over
process.
information
It
does
ows
not
of
between
the
idea
argued
stores
and
observed
of
unitary
that
both
should
memory
STM
be
and
further
L
TM
are
not
subdivided.
phenomena
do
not
t
Some
into
the
stores.
components.
mechanism
STM
to
L
TM
in
that
this
oversimplication.
that
has
unitary
The
from
direction,
direction.
•
•
model
though,
some
phenomena.
Criticism
•
The
one
apart
elaborate
Lockhart
from
rote
It
enables
model
was
such
transfer
rote
shown
rehearsal
structures
is
as
in
people
of
information
rehearsal.
further
can
semantic
use
This
Strengths
It
is
has
been
one
research
that
more
phenomena.
encoding
a
(Craik,
lot
The
1972).
proved
of
of
The
model
is
most
of
data
also
inuential
explaining
model
observed
research
the
capable
is
only
a
few
heuristic—it
of
memory
observed
parsimonious—it
with
highly
models
multiple
can
explain
components.
inspired
numerous
studies.
THEORY
BADDELEY
Essential
✪
This
AND
(1974)—THE
WORKING
MEMORY
MODEL
This
understanding
model
includes
HITCH
four
is
a
zoom-in
components
on
the
that
structure
interact
of
with
STM.
each
way
the
perceived
It
other
.
•
The
of
central
resources
inner
speech
voice
can
material
executive
between
change
(from
the
visual
modality
to
the
of
auditory).
is
responsible
for
the
visuospatial
sketchpad
allocation
and
the
Background
phonological
Essentially
,
this
model
is
a
zoom-in
on
the
structure
of
STM.
•
The
researchers
felt
this
model
was
needed
because
The
episodic
some
ndings
that
were
not
entirely
consistent
integrates
multi-store
model
of
memory
,
where
it
is
assumed
is
a
unitary
The
model:
in
a
later
from
version
the
of
the
visuospatial
and
the
phonological
loop
and
links
it
that
to
STM
(added
information
with
sketchpad
the
buffer
there
model)
were
loop.
L
TM.
store.
working
memory
in
this
model
consists
of
Central
four
executive
components
•
The
having
visuospatial
function
•
each
The
is
to
“The
It
is
inner
different
sketchpad
hold
visual
phonological
information.
a
and
loop:
further
ear”:
its
function.
(“the
holds
eye”):
its
information.
function
subdivided
this
inner
spatial
is
to
into
sound
hold
two
in
a
Phonological
Episodic
Visuospatial
loop
buffer
sketchpad
auditory
parts.
passive
Short-term
Visual
˚
Language
episodic
manner
.
semantics
memory
Articulatory
rehearsal
component
(“the
inner
˚
voice”),
which
duration
in
is
rewords
thus
increasing
their
Figure
memory.
The
inner
voice
can
also
2.3
Source:
visual
speech
information
into
sounds
(for
Working
memory
model
turn
https://jonokowal.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/the-work-
example,
ing-memory-model/
we
subvocally
RESEARCH
pronounce
Support
Essential
understanding
✪
The
memory
for
some
working
phenomena
not
explain,
the
word
for
length
effect,
for
the
the
and
the
as
we
read
working
them).
memory
model
do
model
that
example,
words
provided
an
multi-store
model
phonological
the
effects
of
are
could
similarity
not
sound
because
explanation
easier
effect
effect,
to
also
•
multi-store
•
The
model
phonological
discovered
that
are
32
could
lists
of
more
Unit
by
not
of
be
and
phonologically
to
The
word
the
was
rst
is
Hull
in
similar
this
1964.
letters
than
approach
greater
nothing
effect:
remember
2—Cognitive
by
memory
similarity
Conrad
difcult
explained
lists
to
They
(such
of
why
showed
as
B,
letters
confuse
appeared
Buchanan
that
(such
as
encoded
with
P
,
each
when
R,
X).
traces
the
Presumably
,
of
other
.
rhyming
However
,
stimulus
was
this
is
letters
the
presented
in
writing.
articulatory
suppression.
Findings
similar
acoustically
D,
that
behaviour
P)
units
effect—Baddeley
,
(1975):
for
in
STM
length
short
the
this
showed
words
multi-store
capacity
depending
should
on
the
than
that
for
model
length
of
long
of
change
Thompson
the
capacity
ones.
memory
from
the
the
There
to
and
of
STM
is
explain
standard
words.
7±2
Explanation
of
Introducing
articulatory
voice)
•
in
The
the
the
working
phonological
assuming
is
more
The
word
amount
long
Further
the
(so
of
time
was
speech
was
can
short
be
(even
encoded
as
an
in
by
also
longer
.
In
a
fewer
suppressing
the
inner
voice
is
visually,
effect
and
number
the
of
both
word
It
visual
the
processed
used
long
suppression
This
Further
research:
effects
of
In
terms
the
It
This
is
used
memory
the
or
not
word
1968;
difference
letters
length
logic,
loop
it
sound
effect
sketchpad
does
not
it
it
is
visuospatial
similar
.
is
with
Buchanan
cannot
inner
enter
voice,
instead.
matter
so
where
disappears
information
the
model,
loop,
the
Thomson,
through
visuospatial
for
articulation
(Baddeley,
same
instead,
material
Lewis,
memory
phonological
when
effect
when
Baddeley
,
working
the
no
that
visually,
the
similarity
suppression
sketchpad
makes
shown
word
evidence
of
enter
visuospatial
the
the
how
phonological
(Murray
cannot
phonological
enters
effect.
that
the
presentation
By
task.
human
see
articulatory
whether
also
1975).
the
that
visually
.
was
experimental
and
it.
visually
suppressed,
for
length
experiments
the
sketchpad
correct,
of
to
the
voice”
under
1984).
stored
•
disappearance
shown
presented
goes
given
voice.
a
is
articulation
pronounce
processed
was
information
because
subvocally
without
Vallar
inner
in
It
“inner
disappears
are
the
similarity
•
performing
the
performs
articulation
patterns
time
block
writing)
suppressing
in
to
other
.
explained
are
effects.
explained
when
articulation
each
these
inner
by
result
observed
explained
may
(the
words.
done
is
is
information
should
articulatory
with
words
you
than
and
similar
effect
component
material
pronounced
explanation
phonological
effect
longer
words
example)
model
speech
length
of
rehearsal
similarity
with
same
ndings
memory
confused
testing
that
This
all
Letters
easily
patterns
If
that
subvocally
pattern.
•
these
so
When
anymore
it
it
is
how
is.
supports
the
idea
that
visual
and
separate
stores
within
auditory
articulatory
information
is
processed
in
working
suppression
memory
.
Articulatory
suppression
participants
to
repeat
EVALUATION
OF
a
is
a
technique
sequence
THE
understanding
The
memory
power
,
working
but
this
comes
at
that
while
at
MEMORY
the
MODEL
similarity
model
the
requires
sounds
WORKING
Essential
✪
of
has
cost
large
of
effect,
disappearance
explanatory
the
of
word
both
length
under
effect
and
articulatory
the
suppression.
complexity
.
Limitations
The
Strengths
The
strength
explanatory
observed
by
the
of
the
power.
memory
multi-store
2.1.2
working
memory
It
us
allows
phenomena
model,
Schema
SNOITINIFED
Encoding—a
information
structures
for
(such
that
a
cannot
example,
of
memory;
sensory
as
explain
the
is
range
be
major
makes
its
it
entirety.
of
include
explained
or
phonological
limitation
more
Also
the
other
organs
model
memory
event
the
is
a
Cognitive
that
transferring
to
internal
Retrieval—a
mental
from
reection
of
an
object
or
an
that
mind
“mental
applied
most
to
inuence
How
•
•
schema?
our
(or
schemata)
knowledge,
practically
and
our
do
encoding
is
mental
and
broad
in
the
mental
beliefs
and
inuence
inuence
and
very
rooted
knowledge,
can
a
are
beliefs
everything
deeply
schemas
Schemas
its
complexity
involves
STM
such
as
empirically
as
and
does
sensory
this
in
its
not
memory
the
process
long-term
of
memory;
store
when
it
extracting
is
information
needed
can
stable,
inuence
deeply
our
rooted
mental
knowledge,
representation
beliefs
and
expectations
representation”
stable
is
model
about
sequences
of
actions
or
events
UNDERSTANDING
schemas
organize
only
the
structures
Scripts—schemas
What
model
test
LTM.
Schema—a
representation—a
ESSENTIAL
the
to
L
TM)
Mental
in
of
difcult
theory
process
from
to
model
expectations.
concept
mind,
but
can
only
the
representations
at
all
its
stages,
and
the
Bransford
That
schemas
memory
(1978).
provided
They
of
also
in
the
it
the
prior
reading
of
to
ideas
inuence
is
of
showed
from
a
information
study
text
that
of
that
a
passage
passage.
See
(1972)
already
study
showed
in
They
recall
(once
encoding
(1972).
Johnson
can
the
demonstrated
Johnson
rate
from
inuence
been
and
demonstrated
both
can
has
context
doubles
•
memory?
memory
visual
be
can
expectations.
schemas
memory
Bransford
A
that
That
in
representations
that
by
a
retrieval
there)
Anderson
change
in
of
has
information
been
and
Pichert
perspective
when
retrieval.
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
33
recalling
of
text
passage
results
in
information
a
relevant
to
new
Anderson
T
ypes
of
and
Pichert
this
recalling
more
perspective.
units
•
See
(1978)
Scripts
(mental
events)
enable
Bower
,
Black
can
used
be
are
distinguished
based
on
what
aspect
of
represent.
Social
Below
schemas
are
examples
of
types
of
of
(mental
people)
representations
create
the
foundation
stereotypes—see
“3.1.3
Stereotypes”
See
approach
(1983)
someone’
s
to
in
“Unit
behaviour”.
demonstrated
socio-economic
that
person’
s
and
Gross
behaviour
Essential
a
that
leads
to
passage.
linked
status
will
be
Bransford
full
representation
in
his
that
scripts
sequential
to
inuence
interpreted.
See
of
(1979)
of
about
ourselves.
ourselves)
Aaron
theory
self-schemas
of
depression,
were
the
suggested
driving
development
of
depression.
See
factors
“4.2.3
for
depression”
disorders:
in
“Unit
4
Cognitive
explanations
Abnormal
psychology”.
how
Darley
and
Johnson
(1972)—schemas
context
oor
.
better
recall
Arguably
,
(schema)
this
prior
of
this
is
to
an
the
idea
happens
created
schema,
unfamiliar
and
making
units
contained
because
a
the
ideas
new
encoding
mental
more
inuence
A
closed
carrying,
text
are
effective.
Since
the
text
effect
of
context
on
comprehension
and
passages.
since
the
a
problems.
Of
voice
is
not
is
face
window
there
the
the
the
prevent
to
depends
fellow
to
of
on
the
could
carry
be
that
be
fewer
least
of
An
the
of
also
to
the
cause
human
message.
less
problems.
things
the
instrument.
involve
potential
number
ow
would
additional
accompaniment
would
steady
far
.
on
would
from
but
be
situation
sound
insulated.
shout,
could
no
break
a
the
well
wire
string
best
the
also
tend
middle
enough
a
could
contact,
in
course,
loud
that
would
buildings
operation
break
that
there
clear
Then
is
encoding
most
whole
electricity
,
Then
investigate
Turner
about
Aim
memory
of
Darley
schemas
(SES)
and
representations
representations
cognitive
negative
problem
T
o
memory
3
understanding
Providing
then
demonstrated
in
of
data.
(1983)
RESEARCH
this
sequences
sequential
about
for
in
(1979)
gaps
Black
(mental
Explanations
Gross
passage
the
of
for
behind
Sociocultural
Bower
,
generalized
that
✪
in
about
sense
schema.
Beck,
groups
and
T
urner
ll
Self-schemas
are
•
and
to
make
reality
•
they
to
schemas
events.
Schemas
representations
us
could
It
distance.
With
go
face
to
wrong”.
Method
Experiment;
independent
measures
(Bransford,
Johnson
There
ve
1972)
design.
were
conditions
(groups
of
participants).
Participants
50
to
male
and
female
participate
in
the
high
school
students
who
•
No
context
(1):
participants
heard
the
passage
once.
•
No
context
(2):
participants
heard
the
passage
twice.
•
Context
volunteered
experiment.
were
before:
given
a
prior
context
to
hearing
the
passage
participants
picture.
Procedure
•
Participants
heard
a
tape-recorded
passage
and
Context
after:
to
as
ideas
recall
it
as
accurately
as
they
could,
writing
as
possible.
The
passage
was
as
the
since
balloons
popped,
everything
would
Figure
Source:
34
Unit
the
be
sound
too
far
wouldn’t
away
be
from
able
the
to
2—Cognitive
and
Johnson
approach
to
carry
correct
2.4
Bransford
heard
picture
the
was
given
after
passage.
Partial
context:
participants
were
hearing
passage,
given
a
context
follows.
picture
If
already
down
•
many
context
were
participants
required
the
(1972)
behaviour
only
prior
to
contained
without
the
showing
the
elements
how
they
but
mentioned
operate
the
in
picture
the
together
.
passage
Results
The
Conclusion
passage
shows
contained
average
ideas
14
idea
recall
Group
in
units
the
Average
No
context
(1)
3.6
No
context
(2)
3.8
in
ve
total.
T
able
2.2
The
groups.
ideas
before
made
Partial
T
able
explained
schema
A
Results
results
which
in
an
from
a
mental
by
the
theory:
representation
information
Bransford
and
Anderson
of
perspective
additional
supports
information
recall
only
one
that
participants’
it
correctly
.
ability
This
to
can
be
recalled
Johnson
is
encoded
passage
are
the
which
in
linked
full
then
memory
.
with
the
context
picture
inuences
Idea
units
schema
the
creates
way
encountered
and
is
in
this
way
enhanced.
and
(1972)
Pichert
(1978)—schemas
4.
understanding
change
and
the
of
4.0
RESEARCH
✪
passage
was
terms
3.6
context
Essential
in
8.0
after
2.2
condition
difference
the
encoding
Context
before”
a
comprehend
in
Context
“context
clearly
the
from
when
7.1%
idea
that
of
recalling
a
information
schema
text
inuences
kept
of
retrieval
were
required
homebuyer
recalled,
retrieval
Participants
were
passage
being
inuence
the
to
to
initial
a
given
another
change
burglar
the
or
ller
initial
vice
task,
then
perspective
versa).
Other
some
(from
a
participants
perspective.
memory
.
5.
Participants
without
had
to
reading
it
reproduce
the
story
one
more
time,
again.
Aim
T
o
investigate
the
inuence
of
schema
on
the
retrieval
of
Results
information
from
long-term
memory
.
•
For
the
rst
recall,
perspective
participants
recalled
more
who
had
the
burglar
burglar-relevant
information
the
perspective
Method
and
Experiment;
mixed
participants
recalled
•
Participants
Introductory
order
to
psychology
fulll
a
course
students
who
were
participating
in
Procedure
who
(an
so
Participants
burglar
were
assigned
either
a
homebuyer
or
a
They
were
house
then
where
did
to
boys
read
were
a
text
staying
passage
to
skip
about
school.
not
the
retrieved.
asked
two
they
information
perspective.
changed
additional
perspective
before
not
2.
had
homebuyer
homebuyer-relevant
Participants
second
requirement.
more
information
that
1.
who
design.
but
read
change
had
of
perspective
7.1%)
the
passage
encoded,
to
for
perspective
but
perspective
recalled
important
unimportant
of
been
Change
information.
the
the
more
to
the
rst.
Note
second
time,
this
additional
had
not
inuenced
been
retrieval,
encoding.
a
The
Conclusion
passage
contained
a
total
of
73
ideas,
some
of
them
Perspective
being
potentially
interesting
to
a
burglar
and
some
to
study
real
estate
were
the
✪
Social
social
given
story
RESEARCH
Essential
situation
the
idea
is
that
a
type
of
schemas
schema.
inuence
The
the
agent.
Participants
reproduce
this
supports
process
3.
in
a
in
a
ller
writing
Darley
task,
as
and
then
asked
accurately
Gross
as
to
inuence
retrieval
of
already
stored
information
from
signicantly
higher
possible.
(1983)—effects
understanding
schemas
of
memory.
of
social
schemas
Results
interpretation
of
ambiguous
Results
information.
the
showed
group
from
a
of
high
that
the
ratings
participants
SES
who
were
believed
that
the
child
in
came
background.
Procedure
T
wo
a
groups
child
(a
of
girl)
participants
participants
taking
was
led
SES
background,
had
a
high
SES
Participants
of
the
girl
to
while
watched
academic
believe
the
the
required
(that
to
rate
the
test.
that
other
background
were
in
an
the
girl
group
is,
same
One
came
believed
came
the
video
group
from
academic
It
from
that
a
Conclusion
of
of
rich
a
low
the
girl
was
way
concluded
participants
social
that
SES-associated
perceived
and
schemas
interpreted
an
inuenced
the
ambiguous
situation.
family).
performance
video.
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
35
RESEARCH
Essential
Black
and
Turner
(1979)—effects
understanding
Generalized
✪
Bower,
interpretation
mental
and
scripts
Results
representations
memory
of
of
(scripts)
sequential
underlie
our
events.
It
was
demonstrated
participants
that
were
would
not
that
ll
in
actually
when
the
in
recalling
gaps
and
text.
For
the
the
texts,
“remember”
example,
actions
they
would
Procedure
recall
The
researchers
used
short
texts
describing
checking
actions,
for
toothache,
the
example,
making
receptionist,
descriptions
2.1.3
an
and
were
visiting
on).
Some
(having
checking
of
the
in
steps
one
solve
a
This
these
specic
algorithm
multi-attribute
SNOITINIFED
think
shows
models—models
and
irrational
make
that
describe
decisions,
and
ESSENTIAL
•
of
thinking
how
taking
that
participants
is
and
people
into
person’
s
choosing
account
mind
the
cognitive
processes,
choosing
•
from
a
that
focus
on
observable
making
•
making
when
by
he
a
text
or
she
problem—a
several
several
that
based
focus
decision
is
choice
attributes
on
on
an
the
(what
making
a
goes
on
in
decision)
problem
alternatives
models—models
that
process
thinking
the
results
in
for
Unlike
obtaining
It
and
of
describe
involving
(options)
each
(parameters)
the
rules
of
thinking
of
and
rational
decision-
thinking
and
al
in
the
thinking
(for
to
make
a
are
closely
choice
you
breaking
alternatives
to
or
aspects).
So
thinking
is
a
TPB
in
is
to
the
to
establish
which
theory
the
its
combination
actually
predicts
(2001)
investigated
domain
correlation
of
between
meta-analysis.
See
predictive
validity
condom
use.
They
intention
and
behaviour
Albarracin
et
al
found
in
(2001)
adaptive
decision-maker
framework
use
down
adaptive
decision-maker
framework
(Payne,
Bettman,
into
Johnson
parts
the
extent
connected
need
The
example,
TPB
0.51
test
the
postulated
et
the
to
behaviour
.
Albarracin
a
always
ways
validity:
variables
their
decision-making
order
the
of
The
in
of
real-life
•
process
alternatives.
of
other
new
information.
cognitive
given
responsible
information.
One
predictive
choice.
because
smaller
the
decision-making
encoded
existing
is
between
Thinking
of
between
characterized
decision-making
Decision-making
involves
models—models
process
Multi-attribute
actually
predictors
previously
information
•
encoded
UNDERSTANDING
modifying
cognitive
models—models
their
and
Thinking
was
text.
Normative
Thinking
this
factors
Macro-scale
actions
if
script.
transient
a
decision-making
the
Micro-scale
choice
problem
Descriptive
even
decision-making
strategy—a
to
receptionist
Conclusion
with
in
in
underlying
and
the
a
missing.
Decision-making
enables
dentist
appointment,
so
Thinking
that
the
with
sequences
skipped
of
in
prerequisite
1993)
is
a
micro-level
cognitive
model—it
zooms
in
of
on
the
transient
internal
process
of
making
a
decision.
The
decision-making.
theory
Models
two
In
thinking
and
•
decision-making:
variety
can
models
of
broadly
and
models
of
distinguish
descriptive
thinking
the
describe
thinking
descriptive
states
People
make
types
the
we
of
way
it
it
two
is.
be,
See
and
•
decision-making
The
choice
Normative
effort;
while
descriptive
“Normative
describe
maximizing
models
models
theory
and
•
theory
The
TPB
from
of
sees
behavioural
determined
and
by:
perceived
theory:
making
it
Unit
behaviour
intentions
attitudes,
looks
at
actions
See
behaviour
2—Cognitive
as
which,
control.
as
visible
“Ajzen
(TPB)
actions
perceived
behavioural
processes.
planned
36
planned
decision-making
in
tur n,
social
It
is
a
•
that
result
are
results
of
(TPB)”.
approach
to
behaviour
of
of
strategies
ease
that
Bettman
they
and
emotionally
a
other
model
Johnson
Payne
pressing,
difcult
four
can
use
to
of
cognitive
In
this
emotion;
way
accuracy
the
must
be
decision-making.
See
(1993)
provided
that
people
but
in
a
the
support
situation
tend
at
trade-offs.
(1997)
meta-goals:
negative
than
(1997)
extensively,
Payne
of
justication.
demonstrating
more
and
of
by
minimizing
experience
into
emotionally
Bettman
dictated
factors
and
by
is
accuracy;
the
directly
model
is
avoid
decision-
theory
the
information
macro-level
strategy
Bettman
the
that
norms
(1985)—The
Luce,
to
toolbox
decision
claims
integrated
models”.
a
minimizing
Payne,
The
of
maximizing
models
following.
decisions.
categories—normative
models.
should
as
thinking
the
possess
to
process
same
See
time
Luce,
NORMATIVE
MODELS
•
models
Normative
decision-making
are
models
should
logic,
be.
of
Formal
Statistical
of
theory
logic
theory
normative
result
of
model
DESCRIPTIVE
MODELS
“ideal”
and
in
thinking
Examples
statistical
theory.
describe
that
what
AND
and
may
formulating
are
people
These
formal
normative
correct
probability
in
models
probability,
describes
choices.
decision-making
normative
of
thinking
“correct”
thinking
be
used
assume
theory
tells
us
between
what
is
right
economically
and
uses
monetary
focuses
interests
is
value
to
dene
us
and
and
models
describe
decision-making
as
they
we
are
are
fully
usually
and
make
too
every
many
informed,
made
limited
under
decision
resources
while
uncertainty
time.
a
on
descriptive
prediction
of
models
people’
s
because
decisions,
what
with
fallacies.
However
,
normative
models
are
all
their
used
in
alternatives.
a
background
for
this
research,
because
we
look
at
how
It
deviate
from
normative
models
and
try
to
determine
utility.
whether
Descriptive
that
life
information)
Psychology
people
•
real
to
require
Normative
wrong
attractive
in
models
models
a
as
choosing
also
(incomplete
biases
utility
normative
and
decisions
utility
use
normative
patterns.
as
predictions.
to
because
the
are.
processes
It
is
of
or
not
the
deviations
are
predictable.
thinking
impossible
for
THEORY
AJZEN
(1985)—THE
Essential
Actions
✪
in
their
THEORY
OF
PLANNED
BEHAVIOUR
understanding
are
turn,
determined
are
by
determined
(TPB)
Research
behavioural
by
a
number
intentions
of
which,
•
The
subjective
to
beliefs.
theory
have
(attitudes,
target
of
planned
self-report
norms,
variable
behaviour
measures
of
behavioural
(future
requires
four
control,
behaviour
the
researcher
predictor
variables
intention)
and
one
itself).
Macro-level
•
The
theory
of
planned
behaviour
is
a
macro-level
The
theory
between:
model:
level
of
it
looks
at
whether
behaviour
an
action
at
is
a
large
scale,
performed
or
on
predicts
the
attitudes
and
intention;
and
behaviour
.
norms
intention
determines
effort:
the
stronger
it
be
a
correlation
behavioural
subjective
norms
and
control
intention;
However
,
correlated
behaviour
directly
with
should
intention
not
attitudes,
be
subjective
harder
we
try
to
implement
the
behaviour
.
or
intention
is
determined
by
If
the
theory
three
have
or
subjective
high
a
good
predictive
t
to
empirical
validity:
the
data,
four
it
predictor
factors:
perceptions
of
the
collectively
should
be
able
to
predict
the
target
behaviour
variable
(positive
control.
provides
Behavioural
variables
attitudes—individual
perceived
is,
should
•
should
not.
•
•
there
intention;
theory
Behavioural
the
and
visible
signicantly
The
that
cognitive
(future
behaviour)
with
high
probability
.
negative)
norms—perceived
social
pressure
regarding
Norm
this
•
behaviour
perceived
ability
to
(acceptable
behavioural
perform
the
or
unacceptable)
control—the
perception
of
one’
s
action.
Future
In
other
words,
particular
the
theory
behaviour
to
be
socially
to
perform
is
holds
positive,
acceptable,
and
that
you
you
if
your
believe
believe
attitude
this
you
to
behaviour
a
behaviour
are
able
Perceived
the
action,
this
will
create
a
behavioural
control
intention.
be
If
the
intention
Essential
of
strong
enough,
the
action
will
Figure
2.5
The
The
TPB
condom
Albarracin
et
al
(2001)—a
meta-analysis
of
TPB
understanding
ts
well
into
for
the
TPB
behaviour
in
the
domain
use.
a
model
of
condom
use
42
of
published
96
data
and
unpublished
research
papers
with
a
total
sets.
Procedure
investigate
behaviour
condoms
as
Participants
observed
Aim
T
o
model
performed.
RESEARCH
✪
is
for
(this
transmitted
predictive
people’
s
is
validity
decisions
essential
to
of
to
the
theory
use
enhance
or
not
of
to
prevention
planned
All
data
use
single
of
t
sexually
of
sets
large
the
from
data
model
published
matrix,
of
research
which
planned
was
were
then
combined
used
to
in
a
analyse
the
behaviour
.
diseases).
Results
Method
A
meta-analysis.
•
TPB
use.
this
turned
The
out
to
be
correlation
model
was
a
successful
between
predictor
intention
and
of
condom
behaviour
in
0.51.
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
37
•
There
were
intentions
perceived
signicant
(on
the
control
correlations
one
(on
hand)
the
and
other
between
norms,
behavioural
attitudes
perceived
and
also
hand).
behavioural
conrms
domain
of
control.
predictive
condom
On
validity
a
of
broader
the
TPB
scale,
in
the
the
study
specic
use.
Conclusion
It
was
concluded
when
they
have
these
intentions
that
people
formed
are
an
based
are
more
intention
on
likely
to
attitudes,
do
to
so.
use
In
condoms
their
subjective
turn,
norms
and
THEORY
PAYNE,
BETTMAN
Essential
✪
People
and
the
JOHNSON
(1993)—THE
ADAPTIVE
understanding
possess
choice
minimizing
decision)
AND
is
a
toolbox
guided
negative
as
well
as
by
decision-making
emotion-related
emotion
an
A
of
in
attempt
the
to
process
achieve
strategies,
goals
of
(such
making
as
a
accuracy
.
adaptive
typical
This
model
that
they
decision-making
scenario
have
use
in
a
against
several
that
various
choice
decision
framework
is
a
model.
and
It
looks
zooms
at
in
what
on
is
the
process
he
or
she
is
making
happening
the
in
making
between
strategies
in
the
toolbox
are
person’
s
summarized
or
strategy
strategy
in
T
able
strategy
Attributes
by
(WADD)
(LEX)
Attribute-based
All
strategies
may
in
Alternative-based
(EBA)
the
be
1
…
…
2
…
…
…
…
…
…
2.3
Examples
of
alternatives
the
the
value
Determine
Attribute-based
a
the
satisfy
is
most
on
that
Choose
weighted
alternative
this
important
cut-off
most
(utility)
the
of
In
attribute
and
within
•
In
divided
into
alternative-based
strategies
alternative
point
the
for
important
attribute
and
every
cut-off
attribute
points
attribute
requirements
the
for
this
eliminate
on
and
all
attribute
important
and
and
(WADD
compare
strategies
compare
to
know
tougher
,
alternative
with
often
unattractive
and
a
(LEX
and
EBA)
you
(no
eliminate
attribute.
more
less
Unit
than…).
Find
the
all
the
Choose
options.
options
the
Continue
that
second
until
do
most
only
one
Which
strategy
choose
Maximizing
decision
Minimizing
cognitive
Minimizing
the
accuracy
WADD
effort
alternatives
against
experience
LEX
of
Choose
that
alternative-based
because
they
combines
involve
emotion
strategy
some
attractive
to
the
person
selects
decision-maker
from
the
trade-offs
the
ease
of
justication
attributes
framework,
toolbox
is
2—Cognitive
approach
to
avoid
guided
by
behaviour
strategies):
alternative-
LEX,
EBA
are
ones).
adaptive
attribute-based
(and
it.
strategies
more
any
select
meta-goals.
38
the
SAT)
T
able
strategy
has
attributes
Meta-goals
According
that
and
Maximizing
emotionally
(an
option
attributes.
based
is
alternative,
left.
negative
It
each
sum.
it.
attribute-based
an
then
to
an
for
weighted
toolbox
alternative-based
select
attributes
attributes
highest
Meta-goal
you
and
attribute.
exceeds
your
sum
with
attribute-based.
•
…
3
the
Choose
option
Strategies
Location
service
Restaurant
important
2.4
Quality
Restaurant
Calculate
not
T
able
food
Process
Alternative-based
(SAT)
aspects
of
attribute-based?
option
Elimination
compared
2.4.
best
Satiscing
strategies
involving
mind
choose
Lexicographic
alternatives
of
Alternative-based
additive
of
situations
decision.
Strategy
Weighted
several
a
T
able
The
toolbox
micro-level
of
a
a
decision-making
Alternatives
decision-maker
Restaurant
when
people
attributes.
Quality
cognitive
FRAMEWORK
suggests
making
Micro-level
The
DECISION-MAKER
what
four
2.5
The
four
meta-goals
This
depends
but
most
are
chosen.
on
often
the
SAT
context,
and
EBA
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
the
Bettman
and
Payne
(1997)—support
variables
model
demonstrated
of
should
be
directly
decision-making
that
because
decision-making
software
incorporated
adapts
it
can
to
of
be
emotion.
Aim
The
researchers
to
process
to
predicted
emotion,
emotionally
•
a
in
table
difcult
an
difcult
more
accurate
strategies
if
who
trade-offs
information
make
choose
that,
people
decision-making
make
choices
really
particular
types
allow
and
them
at
to
the
they
same
avoid
DVs
hidden
the
was
×
with
was
and
“Mouselab”,
presented
but
participants
had
to
to
reveal
that
order
in
which
participants
two
types
of
in
click
transitions
form
the
mouse
The
opened
was
in
the
information.
a
the
information
cell
of
framework
software
cells.
counted.
The
were:
open
time
done
attributes),
alternative-based
want
decision-maker
information
(children
was
•
(because
of
on
a
adaptive
which
Occurrence
involving
will:
extensively
decision),
that
the
cells
recorded
adapts
•
for
Measurement
understanding
Emotional
into
Luce,
a
cell
for
a
transitions
different
(after
opening
attribute
but
the
cell
A,
same
alternative)
emotionally
•
attribute-based
trade-offs.
cell
Method
for
the
transitions
same
attribute
(after
but
opening
a
cell
different
A,
open
a
alternative).
Results
Experiment;
independent
measures
design.
•
Participants
in
time
task
on
the
the
higher-emotion
and
opened
a
group
larger
spent
number
more
of
cells
Participants
in
27
undergraduate
total,
which
shows
that
they
were
considering
the
students.
decision
•
more
Participants
carefully
.
in
the
higher-emotion
group
engaged
Procedure
more
Subjects
assumed
the
role
of
members
of
a
charity
and
frequently
to
nancial
support.
decide
terms
ve
which
of
ve
candidate
children
would
attribute-based
of
the
ve
children
was
described
attributes
(such
as
living
conditions
and
All
attributes
Participants
•
•
were
were
split
Higher-emotion
that
the
other
help
from
into
the
help
elsewhere
four
in
in
remaining
a
not
SNOITINIFED
event
children
later
suggest
can
information
told
receive
were
likely
were
to
told
receive
time.
question—one
information
to
participants
trade-offs.
take;
of
that
is
of
Predictions
were
of
of
the
actually
need
to
it
be
decision-making
are
not
provided
•
theory
There
are
•
These
the
forms
that
post-
Recall—a
questions
entirely
may
or
indirectly)
after
the
about
event
an
event
because
form
memory
of
reconstructive
cases
of
when
memory
you
(or
phenomena
remember
not
can
exactly
be
the
memory
unreliability
,
of
passive
memory
retrieval
rather
every
things
the
way
explained
by
retrieval,
form
but
emotional
into
strategies
by
,
framework
that
directly
of
a
model
decision-
directly
retrieval
in
the
of
of
adapt
to,
required
absence
retrieval
as
that
previously
memory—the
an
active
opposed
perception
that
did
not
sources
they
happened).
unable
the
memory
which
suggests
theory
that
of
any
prompts
involves
to
a
process
passive
seen
theory
of
that
views
recreation
process
of
of
past
retrieval
can
to
of
information
from
a
an
active
recreation
of
the
time
of
it
is
remembered.
information:
The
information
of
Over
get
tell
the
event
time,
integrated
them
and
external
information
to
the
post-event
from
extent
these
that
two
we
are
apart.
of
research
memory
A
classic
study
supporting
this
theory
is
Loftus
and
long-term
event
in
theory
(1974),
where
the
researchers
demonstrated
that
the
an
eyewitness
situation
people’
s
accounts
of
recognizes
an
kinds
the
memory
object
be
information.
as
in
two
an
to
as
such
Palmer
mind
of
UNDERSTANDING
happen
but
concluded
inuenced
from
Reconstructive
already
•
store,
were
process
with
Supporting
not
decision-maker
be
incorporated
only
information
consistent
information—information
reconstructive
is
the
processes
events
distortions,
actually
in
memory
occurred
The
participants
emotion
happened
(directly
ESSENTIAL
that
emotion.
identifying
Post-event
shows
negative
adaptive
so
Recognition—a
what
you
decision.
conrmed
making
cognitive
misleading
not
This
experiencing
the
task-related
Reconstructive
Misleading
likely
were
variables
which
As
emotionally
Conclusion
participants
were
less
decision-maker
.
groups.
Reliability
2.2.1
the
else.
group,
at
to
which
children
anywhere
that
two
group,
four
Lower-emotion
2.2
relevant
involve
family
making
size).
strategies
in
avoiding
of
transitions.
get
difcult
Each
attribute-based
were
know,
required
in
obtained
event
can
be
inuenced
by
slight
differences
in
the
during
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
39
way
the
question
Palmer
•
The
researchers
also
discussed
genuine
response
(when
think
The
is
bias
tweak
expected
for
verbal
recall
Miller
involving
a
and
Essential
an
tested
change
memory
is
responses
of
and
two
or
potential
based
•
on
and
visual
but
they
task
tasks,
in
an
found
and
was
both
For
found
integrate
example,
•
that
Palmer
eyewitnesses
theory
verbal
(1974)—the
a
of
(a
in
this
area
the
reconstructive
visual
Burns
is
lack
store
had
of
memory
.
ecological
a
study
robbery)
very
events,
memory
(1978)
conducted
gun
questions
recalled
with
and
(1986)
real-life
little
thus
See
in
and
effect
on
contradicting
Yuille
and
(1986)
results
reection
of
of
Yuille
a
and
Cutshall’
s
completely
mechanism—ashbulb
eyewitness
integrate
Miller
Cutshall
misleading
be
misleading
research
and
found
that
can
Loftus,
settings
However
,
experiment
of
Yuille
Cutshall
different
study
may
memory
memory
.
study
Results
misleading
with
memory
post-event
of
the
Experiment
event
and
for
the
ve
1:
the
groups
mean
(see
speed
T
able
estimates
varied
signicantly
2.6).
it.
Aim
T
o
criticism
See
naturalistic
the
for
understanding
can
it.
distort
validity
.
what
memory
information.
(1978)
situation
information
and
how
recognition
Burns
post-event
One
simple
unchanged,
reconstructive
and
Loftus
eyewitness
information
alter
the
recognition
RESEARCH
In
Loftus
them).
tasks
information
Loftus,
See
and
memory
their
of
phenomenon
both
✪
formulated.
explanations:
participants
•
is
(1974)
investigate
event
if
memory
information
(in
an
can
be
altered
eyewitness
by
misleading
independent
measures
40.5
Collided
39.3
Bumped
38.1
convenience
Hit
34.0
Contacted
31.8
samples.
Experiment
2.6
Findings
5
groups;
experiment
2—150
students,
3
from
Loftus
and
Palmer
(1974)—speed
estimates
1—45
Experiment
students,
(mph)
design.
T
able
students,
estimate
post-
Participants
University
Speed
Smashed
situation).
Method
Experiment;
Verb
2:
emotional
intensity
of
the
verb
in
the
leading
groups.
question
report
inuenced
seeing
the
broken
probability
the
that
glass
in
video
%
participants
participants
(see
T
able
would
2.7).
Procedure
Experiment
1:
participants
were
shown
recordings
of
Verb
trafc
a
accidents,
number
of
witnessed.
research:
then
they
questions
Only
one
“About
about
of
how
were
these
fast
given
the
a
accident
questions
were
questionnaire
the
they
was
cars
had
critical
going
with
The
question
saying
about
“yes”
broken
to
glass
just
for
when
Smashed
32%
Hit
14%
the
they
hit
No
each
of
the
critical
question
12%
other?”
ve
groups
emotional
in
experiment
intensity
of
the
1
verb
only
used
differed
in
that
in
T
able
the
sentence.
2.7
Findings
from
Loftus
and
Palmer
(1974)—broken
glass
The
Conclusion
verbs
used
were:
group
1
“smashed”;
group
2
“collided”;
Experiment
group
3
“bumped”;
group
4
“hit”;
group
5
event
The
independent
variable
(IV)
was
intensity
variable
information,
of
the
(DV)
verb
was
in
therefore
the
operationalized
the
question.
speed
as
The
the
2:
participants
the
However
,
After
of
the
lm
participants
for
this
•
There
shown
a
lm
of
a
question:
each
group
other”;
1
group
lled
three
out
a
questionnaire.
different
“smashed
3:
versions
of
week
could
no
into
critical
each
other”;
question
later
,
participants
were
given
consisted
of
10
question:
experiment
verb
in
the
“Did
questions
2
was
you
see
any
therefore
leading
question
There
group
participants
40
was
Unit
no
reported
broken
and
included
an
explanations
genuine
broken
the
glass?”
emotional
and
the
DV
critical
The
IV
intensity
was
having
seen
broken
approach
to
in
the
memory
change
participant’
s
(the
question
representation
of
could
be
response
but
verbs
bias
of
(memory
of
the
a
higher
emotional
event
does
give
higher
estimates
intensity
2
participants
to
when
they
uncertain).
questionnaire
one
2
of
whether
glass.
was
conducted
to
rule
out
the
second
yes/
Since
it
demonstrated
that
verbs
of
a
higher
in
emotional
intensity
In
may
that
occurred,
cause
participants
to
recall
events
the
never
researchers
concluded
that
we
should
or
the
response
reality
glass.
2—Cognitive
be
change
change,
memory
there
potential
group).
reject
not
two
event).
explanation.
no
be
Three
(control
another
a
Experiment
that
could
the
are
A
there
nding.
causes
“hit
post-
of
car
not
critical
accounts
estimate.
were
they
got
misleading
emotional
•
groups
that
eyewitness
dependent
the
accident.
demonstrated
inuences
misleading
causes
Experiment
clearly
information
event.
post-event
1
“contacted”.
behaviour
change.
bias
explanation
and
accept
genuine
RESEARCH
Essential
Effects
✪
also
be
Loftus,
Miller
and
Burns
(1978)—reconstructive
This
understanding
of
seen
misleading
in
visual
verbal
post-event
recognition
information
resulted
T
able
can
memory
in
a
2
×
2
a
visual
experimental
recognition
design,
in
the
slides
Sign
in
the
question
Stop
integrated
whether
with
visual
verbal
post-event
information
information
obtained
can
Yield
be
Stop
Group
1
Group
2
Yield
Group
3
Group
4
originally
.
Method
T
able
Experiment, independent
in
tasks.
Sign
investigate
shown
task
2.8.
Aim
T
o
in
measures, 2 × 2 experimental
2.8
design.
Finally
,
participants
where
they
had
to
had
pick
a
forced-choice
the
slide
they
recognition
had
seen
test
from
a
pair
Participants
of
195
university
slides.
students.
Results
Procedure
Participants
Participants
(a
a
red
were
Datsun)
sign,
then
shown
that
was
turned
a
series
of
slides
approaching
right
an
depicting
a
intersection
and
knocked
down
one
showing
the
a
(groups
2
and
critical
slide
was
the
received
in
of
3)
misleading
recognized
the
post-event
slide
they
had
information
seen
41%
the
cases,
while
participants
who
correctly
received
pedestrian.
consistent
The
who
car
with
sign
at
post-event
information
(groups
1
and
4)
were
able
the
to
do
so
in
75%
of
the
cases.
intersection.
•
For
half
•
For
the
the
participants,
the
slide
showed
a
stop
sign.
Conclusion
After
seeing
questions,
•
Half
the
•
other
The
the
with
the
red
half,
slides,
the
other
half
while
The
✪
in
were
was
naturalistic
while
we
be
(ashbulb
as
sign.
were
asked:
series
of
“Did
at
and
another
at
the
another
the
Misleading
post-event
with
memory
,
of
yield
car
stop
car
pass
sign?”
pass
the
settings
because
police
dealing
memory)
with
that
a
event.
separate
overrides
(1986)—gun
store
memory
strong
is
not
robbery
emotional
However
,
memory
in
such
•
Four
investigate
function
naturalistic
whether
of
eyewitness
misleading
accounts
post-event
get
great
tasks
T
o
by
after
where
misleading
memory
.
various
are
a
get
practical
integrated
on
a
signicance
common
the
practice
in
incident
were
the
to
the
witnesses
researchers
used
asked
of
were
elements
questions
with
not).
participants’
ofcial
conducted
experimental
leading
others
accuracy
compared
All
police.
also
information,
determine
were
viewpoints.
the
they
participants
police
memories,
records.
distorted
information
in
Results
a
Misleading
setting.
questions
Participants
Method
Interviews
from
months
(some
they
a
has
can
performance
study
interviewed
interviews
cases
mechanism
reconstructive
people
were
found
•
as
affect
This
recognition
information
and
red
Aim
T
o
visual
task.
it
investigations.
21
involving
an
recognition
verbal
alter
sign?”
Cutshall
reconstructive
witnessing
visual
visual
“Did
stopped
stopped
a
follows.
asked:
was
asked
understanding
reactions
could
it
Yuille
phenomenon
highly
yield
one
were
while
it
a
participants
critical
RESEARCH
Essential
was
participants
Datsun
Datsun
it
were
had
able
to
little
effect
on
accurately
very
recall
a
recall.
large
number
of
details.
with
elements
of
an
experiment.
Conclusion
Participants
13
The
eyewitnesses
to
a
real
crime
(a
gun
store
robbery)
in
•
Vancouver
.
results
found
•
have
two
Reconstructive
The
in
potential
memory
articial
study
is
explanations.
a
conditions
actually
tapped
phenomenon
of
into
laboratory
a
different
that
is
only
experiments.
memory
Procedure
phenomenon—ashbulb
•
In
this
real-life
robbery
,
a
thief
entered
a
gun
store,
the
owner
owner
,
stole
managed
outside.
This
was
to
money
untie
and
guns,
himself,
followed
by
a
and
take
gun
a
left.
gun
shooting
robber
was
killed.
The
shooting
was
occurs
event
is
accompanied
by
a
strong
when
the
emotional
The
and
in
experience,
so
with
degree
memory
of
the
event
gets
“imprinted”
run
a
high
of
accuracy
.
See
"2.3.1
The
inuence
which
of
the
It
tied
witnessed
up
memory
.
witnessed
emotion
on
cognitive
processes".
by
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
41
2.2.2
Biases
Cognitive
normative
in
thinking
biases—systematic
models
Conrmation
that
can
bias—the
SNOITINIFED
that
supports
information
that
can
Expected
utility
deviations
result
from
tendency
information
a
and
theory—a
from
problem
heuristics
to
focus
pre-existing
potentially
decision-making
on
belief
contradict
normative
gains
or
is
claims
that
choices
should
be
ignore
there
it
is
no
calculation
of
expected
outcome
for
based
each
then
selecting
the
option
with
or
shortcuts
resources
in
terms
of
potential
losses
that
to
people
analyse
take
the
when
situation
correlation—a
cognitive
bias
where
people
on
a
relationship
between
things
or
event
that
are
not
option
actually
and
time
(framed)
potential
of
see
a
of
thoroughly
theory
made
terms
Heuristics—mental
and
Illusory
choice;
formulated
in
maximum
related
expected
System
1
thinking
that
and
describe
system
thinking
and
rational
2—hypothetical
systems
of
outcome
Framing
risk;
effect—a
describes
how
heuristic
the
of
choice
making
ESSENTIAL
UNDERSTANDING
Normative
and
and
•
Normative
that
a
by
models
the
rules
information.
kinds
to
arrive
heuristics
of
thinking
at
reality
hypothetical
strategies
may
deviations
of
has
as
to
explain
they
rules)
really
the
available
do
not
possess
•
shortcuts.
as
that
of
actual
are
called
(even
when
descriptive
they
is
prospect
The
systems
way
other
•
heuristics
may
system
2
be
1
on
is
if
2
past
it
1
reasoning
through
(Kahneman
the
idea
interact
of
with
system
1
each
framing
quick,
Such
intuitive
and
decisions
decisions
check
It
is
and
these
decisions
responsible
later
in
system
for
the
2
and
risk,
is
out
•
deep
process
rational
of
them
analysis
evolution.
it
are
is
bias
bias
of
seek
beliefs
can
cognitive
bias
between
things
also
As
or
that
is
of
mechanism
of
discovery
when
gains
of
the
and
losses.
less
See
can
rules
for
by
of
Wason,
to
see
a
that
See
conrms
correlation—a
actually
Chapman
and
practising
ink-blot
stereotype
has
connection
not
underlies
It
1968)
thinking.
that
people
by
tendency
conrmation
logic.
human
are
a
potentially
as
illusory
that
is
pre-existing
in
Rorschach
of
the
thinking
information
correlation
interpretations
by
in
See
situations
seen
events
1979).
terms
known
example,
demonstrated
illusory
up
conrms
violates
out
leading
in
intuitive
that
be
decisions
Tversky
terms
a
example
described
risk-aversive
in
common
bias”.
to
human
risk
on
An
(1981)
of
(for
is
focus
backed
more
belief
The
tendency
is
information
existing
demonstrated
of
under
described
information
an
to
information.
(framed)
“Conrmation
the
causes
decision-making
cause
Conrmation
(1969),
thinking”.
theory
in
Kahneman
Ignoring
connected.
See
when
cognitive
one’
s
tendency
theory
people
possible
a
(Kahneman,
described
and
this
have
override
effect:
Another
seek
“Common
deviations
theory
Tversky
been
2003).
for
experiences.
developed
“System
rational
is
theory”.
bias.
value.
can
necessary
.
and
and
responsible
evolutionary
System
thinking
described
thinking
System
based
•
of
See
available
prospect
beliefs.
models
of
Empirically
to
deviate
causes
systematic
contradict
T
wo
analysis
expected-utility
risk-aversive
•
and
such
problem
decisions
causes.
portion
involving
Using
biases—
thinking
intuitive
thinking”.
“Prospect
of
people
heuristics.
cognitive
human
are
this
all
(shortcuts)
to
of
from
known
lead
One
limited
models.
attempt
normative
are
not
•
assume
uninuenced
people
take
They
between
the
decision-making
rational,
is
considers
They
decisions
or
decision-making
from
in
predictable
that
capacity
,
and
simplied
and
thinking.
completely
resources.
normative
Models
thinking
is
However
,
may
systematic,
from
factors,
of
Incomplete,
use
of
“correct”
relationship
under
whether
intuitive
computational
emotional
those
of
decision-maker
unlimited
•
models
choice
on
decision-making
describe
•
descriptive
a
depends
the
test.
formation.
It
Chapman
clinicians’
can
See
also
be
“Illusory
Examples
correlation”.
•
Numerous
They
can
cognitive
be
loosely
biases
have
grouped
on
been
the
identied.
basis
of
their
THEORY
SYSTEM
1
Essential
✪
AND
and
2
THINKING
•
understanding
Hypothetically
quick
SYSTEM
there
intuitive,
the
exist
two
systems
of
thinking,
other
one
rational
and
more
one
thorough.
System
1
automatic
be
the
(2003)
differentiated
between
two
42
of
Unit
thinking—system
2—Cognitive
1
and
system
approach
to
It
is
fast,
relatively
that
instinctive,
unconscious.
developed
enables
rst
individuals
to
in
emotional,
It
is
the
make
thought
process
rapid
to
of
decisions
hypothetical
based
systems
and
system
evolution.
Kahneman
thinking
2.
behaviour
on
their
past
experiences,
which
is
important
for
survival.
not
where
as
•
However
,
being
always
heuristics
2
originate.
at
the
cost
or
entirely
It
also
is
of
such
rational.
decisions
System
commonly
1
referred
later
is
COMMON
Research
biases.
in
may
the
and
cause
be
OF
has
to
is
analytical,
thought
INTUITIVE
to
to
to
evolved
2
enables
responses
When
we
switched
the
on
and
have
to
rst
of
us
language
to
analyse
the
time,
intuitive
override
and
override
the
situation
resources
decisions,
possibly
abstract
immediate
faulty
or
in
greater
the
necessity
system
2
may
thinking.
THINKING
based
cognitive
on
the
•
factors
the
tendency
existing
to
beliefs
seek
(for
out
information
example,
that
conrmation
conrms
bias,
pre-
illusory
correlation)
a
example,
development
cross-check
be
as:
on
the
System
automatic
logical,
have
numerous
grouped
such
focus
(for
It
more
identied
loosely
them,
information
slower
,
conscious.
area
can
tendency
framing
is
CAUSES
this
They
with
thought.
depth.
thinking
rule-based
•
comes
“intuition”.
System
that
this
accurate
limited
portion
asymmetric
of
available
•
dominance,
the
tendency
inconsistent
effect)
to
avoid
the
cognitions
mental
(for
stress
example,
of
holding
cognitive
dissonance).
THEORY
PROSPECT
Essential
under
by
risk.
a
It
that
that
from
a
may
be
Deviations
descriptive
deviations
people
think
theory
from
of
decision-making
expected
about
utilities
utility
as
theory
changes
by
theory
Kahneman
of
individuals
reference
think
point.
manipulated
and
Tversky
decision-making
In
by
about
its
the
tur n,
way
utilities
the
the
(1979)
under
as
risk.
However
,
deviate
that
from
the
experiments
from
people
this
value
like
2.7.
Figure
linear
assign
subjective
to
less
normative
showed
that
function.
subjective
losses,
so
that
model
actual
human
Prospect
theory
value
gains
the
to
choice
decisions
suggests
and
more
function
looks
is
It
Value
changes
reference
decision
point
problem
formulated.
•
Problems
people
•
The
The
formulated
to
Problems
people
be
more
be
more
counterpart
normative
should
multiplied
the
be
the
preferred
expected
utility
and
linear
function:
to
that
by
that
of
take
terms
of
potential
losses
cause
risks.
potential
gains
cause
Losses
the
In
the
this
theory
theory
probability
yields
the
of
largest
is
compared
utility
of
that
an
to
outcome,
value
is
is
outcome
chosen
and
as
take
Figure
theory
,
subjective
the
a
to
the
relationship
value
more
risk
Gains
model
prospect
one.
utility
willing
in
to
risk-avoidant.
theory.
outcome
terms
normative
model
utility
then
in
eager
formulated
to
expected
In
a
point.
theory
descriptive
claims
is
explains
reference
Prospect
is
theory
suggesting
from
a
understanding
Prospect
✪
THEORY
attached
utility
pursue
between
to
we
expect,
that
option.
an
expected
option
the
more
is
a
we
This
2.7
tendency
whether
are
Value
losses
is
the
function
of
human
problem
known
in
as
is
the
prospect
theory
decision-makers
formulated
framing
in
to
terms
depend
of
gains
on
or
effect.
Value
Losses
Figure
2.6
Value
Gains
function
in
the
normative
expected
utility
theory
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
43
RESEARCH
Essential
In
✪
more
Tversky
and
Kahneman
(1981)—framing
B:
understanding
decision-making
risk-aversive
situations
when
and
the
less
involving
problem
in
terms
of
gains
in
terms
of
losses.
This
of
normative
effect
is
risk-aversive
risk,
people
described
when
it
is
There
are
(framed)
predictions
the
a
systematic
deviation
expected
utility
be
saved
the
inuence
of
the
way
a
2/3
that
600
probability
people
that
no
will
people
will
2
was
given
the
following
options.
the
C:
400
D:
There
people
will
die.
theory
.
is
1/3
probability
investigate
probability
and
described
from
Aim
T
o
1/3
saved
Group
is
is
be
decision
problem
probability
that
600
that
will
nobody
will
die,
and
2/3
die
is
Results
framed
on
decisions
in
scenarios
involving
risk.
•
Option
A
option
Method
Experiment;
independent
measures
•
design.
B
Option
C
option
Participants
307
a
university
classroom
•
students
who
answered
brief
questionnaires
Note
in
D
was
by
72%
of
participants
(and
chosen
by
22%
of
participants
(and
78%).
logically
was
decisions
two
chosen
28%).
by
that
groups
setting.
was
by
the
problem
equivalent.
rationally
,
groups
to
be
If
you
no
you
given
to
assume
would
different.
the
that
expect
two
people
choices
However
,
we
in
make
the
see
that
Procedure
decisions
Participants
were
given
the
following
were
actually
reversed.
problem.
Conclusion
Imagine
that
the
unusual
Asian
USA
is
preparing
for
an
outbreak
of
an
The
disease,
which
is
expected
to
kill
600
the
T
wo
alternative
programs
to
combat
the
disease
only
have
situation
Assume
that
the
exact
scientic
estimate
of
of
the
programs
are
as
be
A:
1
was
200
given
people
the
will
following
be
Essential
options.
✪
that
conrms
that
this
a
is
the
bias
it.
is
a
This
has
card
told
•
(1968)
problem.
the
belief
to
and
bias
focus
on
ignore
violates
the
information
on
•
of
answer
information
logic
(which
in
•
the
There
has
The
the
is
an
task
that
a
is
to
is
ILLUSORY
Essential
✪
Illusor y
may
see
has
this
were
in
the
given
problem
now
four
classic
cards
but
“If
a
to
“name
turned
four-
and
•
on
has
the
those
over
of
is
in
how
potential
losses
(“will
die”).
This
gains
should
is
a
decision-maker
,
deviation
from
so
the
the
observed
normative
the
framing
losses”
effect:
(Baron
“Avoid
risks,
but
2008).
side
and
a
number
•
a
vowel
other
order
on
one
side,
then
cards
of
and
or
it.
7
For
4
does
can
“A”,
(the
This
lead
the
really
turning
either
you
lead
to
the
useless
nor
and
“7”.
From
the
card
the
there
supports
refutes
supporting
K
supported
A
that
that
turning
test
is
and
model),
supporting
turn
side,
number
,
logically
,
“4”
correct
why
.
reverse
odd
only
is
if
“K”,
normative
to
example,
on
So,
not
Similarly
,
“7”.
an
can
it.
are
logic
the
4
is
the
rule
is
or
an
the
rule,
rule.
rule,
but
useless
not
because
rule.
because
the
rule
will
be
rejected.
it
However
,
the
“A
or
most
popular
answers
in
Wason’
s
study
were
side”.
and
to
only
those
determine
cards,
only”
selectively
whether
“A
to
expectations
and
4”.
This
information
and
potentially
at
the
shows
that
same
contradict
can
time
their
that
people
potentially
ignore
attend
support
their
information
that
expectations.
CORRELATION
understanding
in
violates
their
is
widespread—it
was
shown
clinicians
Explanation
norms
between
with
Unit
one
four
there’
s
refuting
can
line
stereotype
on
cards,
in
this
practising
groups
terms
theory
.
view
A
T
urning
were
false”.
relationship
goes
letter
card
number
or
rational
number
if
neither
correlation
a
a
if
44
four-card
side.
be
true
potential
called
“A”
T
urning
it
cards
rule:
even
was
need
rule
Wason’s
demonstrated
other
a
avoid
of
refuting
model).
Participants
the
to
the
point
following.
Each
for
been
risks
even
Wason
or
choices
utility
Suppose
tendency
Conrmation
normative
Demonstration:
two
in
BIAS
pre-existing
contradicts
case
of
expected
saved
understanding
Conrmation
saved”)
matter
take
CONFIRMATION
the
either
follows
reversal
Group
between
described,
the
not
consequences
is
been
(“will
proposed.
difference
people.
and
it
is
things
prior
to
of
statistics.
that
beliefs.
be
are
to
not
Illusor y
prevalent
believed
be
a
People
in
correlation
approach
to
tendency
existing
thinking
of
when
of
violated
behaviour
in
to
beliefs
correlation
mechanism
formation.
2—Cognitive
The
related
is
is
the
seek
also
out
belief
in
that
reality
they
are
in
case
is
this
information
seen
illusory
two
not.
The
statistics.
that
conrms
correlations.
phenomena
normative
are
pre-
An
illusory
connected
model
that
is
Demonstration
Male
homosexuality
Chapman
practising
to
and
in
test
is
unstructured
to
say
what
responses
It
had
“see”.
an
test
is
do
in
fact
tendencies
where
are
and
believed
that
we
into
patient’
s
the
a
that
tendency
pictures.
These
known
as
to
test
Rorschach
blot)
(an
(statistically)
are
how
ink-blot
patients
have
particular
Rorschach
test.
ink
insight
demonstrated
ink-blot
homosexuality.
stimulus
It
the
investigated
the
male
projective
gain
for
established
a
on
(1969)
using
particular,
they
homosexuals
responses
were
ambiguous
to
been
responses
Chapman
clinicians
diagnose,
ink-blot
and
can
given
an
asked
use
the
personality.
male
give
particular
Figure
statistically
clinically
valid
In
of
male
2.8
Rorschach
However
,
clinicians
indicative
of
male
contrast,
in
the
study
failed
homosexuality
to
see
despite
these
actual
signs
sex,
as
frequent
male
Instead,
they
saw
other
signs
of
that
might
conrm
prior
expectations,
or
but
were
signs
by
real
evidence.
For
example,
of
homosexuality
is
seeing
a
“a
2.3
pigeon
The
SNOITINIFED
Covert
event
one
of
the
vivid
inuence
one’
s
and
own
unexpected
ESSENTIAL
in
Card
clinicians
the
witnessing
incorrectly
Emotion
a
uncertain
and
forms
the
stereotypes
basis
For
example,
it
of
may
many
be
the
other
phenomena
mechanism
of
stereotypes.
See
“3.1.3
Stereotypes”
in
of
“Unit
approach
to
3
behaviour”.
emotion
on
cognitive
witnessed
Overt
processes
rehearsal—discussing
an
event
with
other
people
memory
receiving
emotionally
of
the
arousing
mechanism;
the
Personal
circumstances
news
of
an
event
consequentiality—the
event
is
if
perceived
it
is
perceived
as
as
signicant
signicant,
extent
to
it
to
oneself
arouses
which
an
personally;
an
emotional
reaction
UNDERSTANDING
relationship
between
special
cognition
memory
mechanism.
Some
of
the
issues
a re
as
follows.
and
cognition
bidirectional
cognition
may
inuence
cognition.
way
or
animal”,
emotion
exists
confused
V
.
previously
recollection
or
with
cognition
of
special
detailed
and
Bidirectional
The
that
genitalia.
correlation
correlation
psychology
.
memory
memory—a
highly
surrounding
•
signs
humans
clinically
“humanized
and
rehearsal—replaying
in
Flashbulb
•
mittens”
Emotion
2.3.1
and
wearing
is
female
Sociocultural
as
the
not
formation
such
of
valid
co-
in
up
be
homosexuality—
Illusory
valid
one
to
Illusory
occurrence.
backed
V
homosexuality.
thought
ones
Card
signs
are
inuence
cognition
appraisal
of
reaction.
The
cognitive
variables
closely
relationship
emotion,
that
latest
and
There
•
If
emotion
it
is
a
special
them:
•
may
Is
it
special
neural
encoding
subsequent
inuences
stimuli
interrelated.
between
theories
as
emotion
mediates
an
of
a
is
emotion
integral
through
person’
s
part
of
•
How
does
of
See
ashbulb
emotional
the
mechanism,
time
the
that
ashbulb
vividness
accuracy?
recognize
at
rehearsal
characteristic
cognitive
emotional
memory
does
it
have
a
basis?
of
event
creates
or
rather
vividness
memory?
ashbulb
“Further
occurs
the
memory
exploration
of
compare
the
to
theory
its
of
memory”.
reactions.
T
o
•
There
are
many
cognition.
One
examples
of
them
of
is
a
how
emotion
special
the
rst
question,
Sharot
demonstrated
answer
that
ashbulb
memories
memory
as
ashbulb
memory.
See
Brown
Support
their
of
a
for
study
set
of
ashbulb
Brown
events
consequential
the
and
the
and
found
event,
may
memory
Kulik
the
(1977)
that
the
more
investigated
more
detailed
memories
the
second
and
vivid
subsequent
recollection.
They
also
showed
the
role
Brown
and
Kulik
of
of
the
See
Sharot
et
selective
al
(2007).
See
investigation
of
re s e a rc h
in
it
has
been
this
the
a re a
idea
role
vividness
or
et
demonstrated
al,
than
of
1996)
the
that
in
some
rehearsal
experience
ashbulb
of
memory
the
the
question,
rehearsal?”
research
showed
that
accuracy
of
by
Neisser
ashbulb
and
Harsch
memories
is
(1977).
ashbulb
aimed
of
Neisser
important
“Is
encoding
to
clarify
flashbulb
There
decreases
is
evidence
with
the
that
course
accuracy
of
time
of
at
ashbulb
the
same
rate
memory
accuracy
of
regular
memories.
See
“How
accurate
are
certain
ashbulb
s u r ro u n d i n g
by
overt
as
issues
question,
more
third
memories
Further
amygdala.
example,
questionable.
Further
left
its
(1992)
See
a
itself.
result
personally
(for
play
event
For
rehearsal.
of
(1977).
research
In
(2007)
trigger
and
For
Kulik
al
mechanism
activation
known
et
inuences
memory
as
memories?”
a
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
45
THEORY
BROWN
AND
Essential
✪
of
The
a
of
special
in
which
of
ashbulb
memory
vividly
surprising
Flashbulb
(1977)—THE
THEORY
OF
FLASHBULB
and
rst
suggests
that
circumstances
emotionally
memories
one
memory
mechanism
the
are
vivid
learned
of
the
enables
us
overt
existence
to
surrounding
arousing
•
the
of
surprising
•
the
and
and
Overt
receipt
news.
memories
a
MEMORY
Maintenance
understanding
theory
remember
KULIK
of
ashbulb
covert
memories
rehearsal
includes
people
in
which
the
•
through
Covert
rehearsal
is
is
with
other
reconstructed.
replaying
the
event
in
one’
s
own
memory
.
circumstances
emotionally
Model of maintenance
event.
Event is surprising
T
wo
achieved
conversations
event
Model of formation
arousing
is
rehearsal.
Over t rehearsal
Cover t rehearsal
mechanisms
The
mechanism
and
personally
arousing
In
other
and
will
words,
witnessed
of
formation:
consequential,
trigger
for
event
a
to
if
an
will
event
be
memories
satisfy
two
is
surprising
Event is personally
emotionally
photographic
ashbulb
needs
it
consequential
representation.
to
be
formed,
conditions:
it
Consolidation of
memory traces
the
should
Event is
be
unexpected
and
it
should
create
a
strong
emotional
emotionally
reaction
(which
occurs
if
the
event
is
personally
arousing
signicant).
•
The
mechanism
of
maintenance:
after
the
event
has
Figure
been
imprinted
in
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
The
were
found
these
Brown
it
needs
and
to
Kulik
be
principal
(1977)—determinants
to
be
a
high
level
consequentiality
variables
frequency
of
attain
overt
of
(the
covert
of
ashbulb
surprise
and
mechanism
sufciently
and
of
were
determinants
high
of
levels,
rehearsal
(the
2.9
Flashbulb
memory
model
sustained.
understanding
two
personal
memory
,
a
asked
memories
they
high
event
level
formation).
they
affect
of
If
the
mechanism
ashbulb
rst
to
write
received
on
a
frequency
memories
a
ve-point
of
participant
free
news
the
Personal
rehearsal
had
recall
of
(the
related
of
circumstances
event.
They
which
rated
each
Consequentiality
scale
and
the
times
the
approximate
the
in
also
memory
to
number
of
somebody
else).
of
Results
maintenance).
Rehearsal
affects
how
vivid
and
elaborate
the
•
memories
Black
participants
elaborate
Aim
T
o
were
more
likely
to
have
vivid,
are.
leaders
investigate
the
assassinations,
signicant
determinants
highly
of
ashbulb
newsworthy
events,
memories
and
about
as
personally
events.
•
ashbulb
who
Martin
were
Luther
leaders
black
participants
had
of
most
King
these
Occurrence
memories
involved
or
more
than
about
with
Malcolm
personal
to
ashbulb
white
those
X).
US
national
civil
rights
Assassination
consequentiality
(such
of
to
participants.
memories
correlated
(in
both
Method
white
Correlational
data;
based
on
a
questionnaire
centred
and
black
participants)
with
ratings
of
personal
around
consequentiality
.
10
very
unexpected
or
novel
events.
There
was
an
element
•
of
quasi-experiment:
difference
was
investigated
Occurrence
frequency
white
Americans
hypothesized
would
have
and
that
black
Americans
assassinations
different
of
because
different
consequences
for
it
of
ashbulb
overt
memories
also
correlated
with
rehearsal.
was
public
these
of
between
gures
populations.
Conclusion
Results
They
of
the
support
study
the
match
role
of
the
predictions
personal
of
the
theory.
consequentiality
in
Participants
the
40
white
Americans
and
40
black
Americans,
aged
formation
of
ashbulb
memories
(the
model
of
20–60.
formation).
in
They
sustaining
also
these
support
memories
the
role
(model
of
of
overt
rehearsal
maintenance).
Procedure
However,
Participants
lled
out
a
questionnaire
that
was
eliciting
around
10
events.
Nine
of
the
events
involved
(mostly
assassinations)
and
the
other
event
was
just
a
rehearsal.
personal
46
Unit
one
that
was
unexpected
2—Cognitive
and
approach
shocking.
to
study
surprise
(all
did
the
not
directly
events
test
used
in
the
the
role
of
questionnaire
political
were
gures
the
centred
Participants
behaviour
assumed
to
be
sufciently
surprising)
or
covert
FURTHER
The
theory
These
sparked
research
groups,
•
EXPLORATION
depending
Does
there
memory?
•
Is
al
a
was
be
key
unique
to
research
broadly
research
neural
in
divided
Sharot
OF
the
into
FLASHBULB
area.
this
et
See
of
(2007).
vividness
ashbulb
•
See
are
Sharot
of
ashbulb
of
the
memories
event
Sharot
itself
et
al
created
by
activation
when
personally
of
the
of
the
ashbulb
event
that
by
subsequent
ashbulb
memory
rehearsal?
the
result
of
rehearsal?”
there
how
is
no
arguing
accurate
their
accuracy.
are
that
they?
research
See
on
“How
ashbulb
Brown
vividness,
accurate
memories
and
Kulik
but
are
never
ashbulb
memories?”
(2007)—neural
amygdala
may
memory—left
is
rather
of
(surprise,
mechanism
of
Placed
left
or
focused
assessed
mechanism
activated
vivid,
(1977)
or
vividness
Although
neural
understanding
Selective
“Is
encoding
underlying
al
MEMORY
consequentiality)
three
question.
mechanism
discover
by
THEORY
(2007).
Essential
and
the
THE
additional
can
made
RESEARCH
✪
of
attempt
characteristics
neural
lot
on
exist
An
mechanism
et
a
initiatives
OF
being
be
60
the
amygdala
recalled
is
in
cue
seeing
is
ashbulb
the
memory
shocking
word
consequential.
an
fMRI
words,
word
participants
“summer”
“September”
to
“summer”
from
scanner,
either
related
memory
memory
the
they
the
had
to
saw
a
series
“September”.
they
terrorist
preceding
or
had
attack.
to
On
of
On
provide
seeing
a
the
provide
an
autobiographical
summer
of
2001.
Aim
T
o
investigate
comparing
compared
the
brain
to
neural
mechanism
response
control
to
of
ashbulb
recollecting
the
memory
9/11
attack
by
Results
as
•
Selective
control
Method
•
Experiment.
two
Mixed
separate
repeated
design:
groups
measures
measured
in
each
of
independent
participants
because
of
the
activation
participants
events.
two
measures
were
types
because
compared;
of
memories
were
groups.
•
were
of
the
left
recalling
amygdala
events
from
occurred
9/11,
but
when
not
events.
The
rates
two
groups:
of
this
it
the
Downtown
the
Midtown
During
9/11
amygdala
selective
was
activation
observed
group
and
in
were
83%
only
of
40%
different
in
participants
of
the
from
participants
from
group.
trials
the
activation
Downtown
than
the
group
Midtown
showed
group,
higher
but
there
Participants
was
24
participants
who
had
witnessed
the
9/11
terrorist
New
Y
ork
in
difference
across
groups
for
summer
trials.
attacks
•
in
no
Selective
activation
of
the
left
amygdala
correlated
with
2001.
the
proximity
Center
of
during
the
the
participant
attacks
(r
=
to
the
0.45,
World
p
<
T
rade
0.05).
Procedure
Three
years
after
the
attacks
participants
were
asked
to
Conclusion
retrieve
memories
of
that
day
as
well
as
memories
of
It
personally
selected
control
events
from
2001.
was
may
were
split
into
two
concluded
be
The
Downtown
group
(they
had
been
in
close
to
the
World
T
rade
Center
,
at
the
the
The
of
results
participant
is
more
Midtown
group
(they
were
a
few
miles
away
pattern
place
of
the
Essential
Some
rehearsal
makes
•
For
largest
memories
California.
to
opposite
and
the
not
of
of
ashbulb
memories
the
conrms
that
activation
is
left
higher
is
closer
to
the
place
of
the
attack
personally
consequential).
At
specic
9/11
and
into
those
level
1989
of
of
of
al
that
event
how
it
itself,
detailed
(1996)
•
is
that
and
not.
Prieta
investigated
earthquake
participants
and
USA).
who
did
their
the
to
Loma
the
the
those
who
so
it
only
of
well
estimate
to
memories
characterizes
had
of
did
were
amygdala
The
when
the
(so
same
the
not
to
time,
control
surprising,
shocking
events.
arousal
in
participants
detailed
Atlanta
in
the
the
who
(the
were
affected
required
during
emotional
to
area
report
event
as
•
arousal.
relatives
from
It
concluded
memories
to
experienced
a
at
times
On
the
they
that
greater
the
ratings
recall
the
other
affected
Atlanta)
of
that
with
participants
the
discussing
people.
was
in
memories
reported
of
showed
correlate
other
rehearsal?
number
Califor nian
California
participants
or
discussed
the
people.
study
not
who
from
also
the
some
had
the
other
ashbulb
from
relatives
They
emotional
some
with
Results
fact,
vivid
were
Further
,
as
encoding
arousal
of
et
earthquake)
coast
is
result
event
of
are.
Neisser
Some
the
importance
claiming
of
contribution
the
the
memories,
experience
memories
divided
emphasize
ashbulb
and
example,
(close
vividness
understanding
in
the
ashbulb
Is
researchers
rehearsal,
the
memories.
attack).
RESEARCH
✪
of
ashbulb
from
memories,
the
activation
of
attack)
this
•
selective
mechanism
time
event
of
neural
Downtown
the
Manhattan,
the
groups.
pattern
•
that
Participants
also
the
extent
time
of
Cognitive
so
event
rehearsal
hand,
emotional
more
did
In
levels
participants
vivid
and
participants
more
the
low
(including
inuences
than
the
reported
area
had
event;
of
signicantly.
often
with
ashbulb
emotional
arousal
event.
approach
to
behaviour
47
RESEARCH
Essential
Unlike
✪
How
accurate
are
ashbulb
memories?
describe
understanding
vividness,
accuracy
of
ashbulb
memories
is
questionable.
Rationale
If
we
on
admit
ashbulb
accuracy
in
of
subsequent
memory
,
such
discussing
exposed
to
the
(see
post-event
on
same
how
their
Neisser
and
memory
of
should
can
with
From
what
be
other
may
it.
Classic
and
be
other
vivid
we
impact
Harsch
the
about
studies
be
in
•
with
the
this
memories
original
are,
but
(1992)
was
given
investigated
Space
to
106
Shuttle
participants’
explosion.
participants
asking
them
to
only)
(HL
SNOITINIFED
Empathy—the
ability
another
is
person
component
and
media
between
a
time,
ESSENTIAL
to
understand
experiencing;
an
emotional
or
feel
includes
(perspective-taking,
information)
processing
of
tasks
induced
by
rather
digital
than
know
through
back
how
exposed
to
did
of
their
rating
of
only
three
the
two
42%
years
of
points
the
later
in
the
three
we
not
type
the
years
in
have
a
own
and
asked
they
were
to
extremely
explanation.
very
at
exactly
responses
their
earlier
no
while
happen
their
answers,
provide
can
in
shown
detailed
the
the
and
same
way
vivid
time
we
this
remember
.
digital
of
assessment
structured
is
used
duration
of
every
the
with
(by
a
of
minute
where
over
observation
a
and
checklist
over
again
period
and
neuroimaging
certain
behaviour—a
observation
correlates—areas
established
associated
shapes
Since
neuronal
humanity
is
connections
plate
to
digital
technology
,
processes
research)
psychological
to
process
of
the
be
or
function
assume
that
the
brain
and
undergo
some
changes
as
a
concepts
tectonics).
it
would
hence
result
on
involve
spatial
reasoning
(such
as
(2012)
are
all
impact
positive
effects.
cognitive
However
,
processes
digital
negatively
.
technology
We
consider
cognitive
of
on
the
example
of
induced
media
multi-tasking
and
its
that.
For
technology
also
Sanchez
be
detrimental
digital
that
See
becoming
this
of
twice:
Results
correctness
between
when
something,
brain
technology
the
condent
and
could
Neurological
may
Effects
but
and
These
processing
very
from
behaviours
scientic
experience
neuroplasticity
.
reasonable
were
on
one
questions
later
.
self-reported
average
discrepancies
about
the
for
about
mean
answered
occasions,
the
shows
of
news
doing,
UNDERSTANDING
that
increasingly
both
special
emotional
focusing
On
Minute-by-minute
cognitive
component
multi-tasking—switching
various
a
The
responses
were
Participants
something
in
same
years
the
were
way.
explain
what
both
Background
We
of
memory
the
three
they
83%.
low.
This
A
was
was
surprised,
Challenger
high.
questionnaire
never
and
receiving
what
answered
condence
was
Consistency
time
surrounding
moment,
incident
of
on
focused
world
Induced
•
from
the
following.
Participants’
same
suffer
area
the
the
questions
such
at
Participants
after
condence
reconstructive
memory
circumstances
were
memory
post-event
memory”),
integrated
ashbulb
of
that
processing
at
on).
day
•
Cognitive
task
so
the
accuracy
.
questionnaire
forth
and
because
may
forms
ashbulb
research
large
compromised,
know
Does
a
acknowledge
people
and
we
has
also
Reconstructive
distorting
bias?
rehearsal
questions
“2.2.1
detailed
assessed
2.4
event
information
information,
the
we
memories
leading
misinformation.
memory
they
showed
that
the
(where
a
effects
summary
,
see
on
attention
“The
and
positive
academic
and
performance.
negative
effects
of
cognitive
modern
technology
on
Digital
technology
cognitive
processes”.
processes
Some
research
technology
studies
can
show
improve
that
interaction
cognitive
with
processing
digital
skills.
and
reliability
of
cognitive
For
processing
example,
Rosser
shooters
helped
et
al
(2007)
found
that
playing
rst-person
Induced
surgeons
become
faster
and
more
media
interacting
in
surgery
simulations.
See
Rosser
et
al
(2007).
This
with
to
explain
because
both
rst-person
shooters
operations
eye–hand
use
the
same
coordination
set
of
of
it
playing
domain.
has
For
videogames
shooters)
48
Unit
also
been
videogames
visuospatial
example,
that
may
demonstrated
can
be
require
(2012)
spatial
essential
dimension
Multi-tasking
can
of
have
on
attention
achievement.
and
See
focus,
resulting
“Reliability
of
in
cognitive
abilities
in
the
context
of
digital
technology”.
(such
a
to
experience
(2012)
showed
as
that
sampling
among
students.
rst-person
Rosen,
Carrier
of
who
media
method,
Moreno
multi-tasking
is
highly
et
al
prevalent
wider
that
understanding
approach
the
effects
to
showed
abilities
students’
2—Cognitive
that
transferrable
Sanchez
enhance
an
skills.
Using
However
,
effects
academic
processes
and
is
technology
.
and
lower
surgery
digital
seems
detrimental
easy
multi-tasking
accurate
See
“Experience
sampling
method”.
playing
abstract
behaviour
and
surrounded
Cheever
(2013)
themselves
with
showed
more
that
students
technology
while
studying
tasking,
grade
at
home
and
especially
point
engaged
using
average
in
more
Facebook,
(GPA)
scores
had
media
lower
(which
are
multi-
“Emotion
average
used
as
and
of
school
Cheever
reduced
achievement).
(2013).
This
can
See
Rosen,
probably
be
Rosen
detrimental
et
al
effects
performance
can
metacognitive
has
been
it
has
(2011)
of
be
demonstrated
multi-tasking
overcome,
strategies.
been
multi-tasking
anterior
explained
this
See
to
on
an
Rosen
demonstrated
correlates
cingulated
cognitive
era.
Researchers
that
these
attention
extent,
et
al
by
and
decline
decline
digital
empathy
with
the
scores
onset
of
in
tests,
the
have
linked
it
to
the
digital
appearance
and
Hsing
with
cortex
that
lower
control
and
(ACC).
The
emotional
See
Konrath,
of
O’Brien
(2011)
However
,
this
activities.
Research
negative
impact
is
not
true
for
all
online
using
showed
that
online
activities
that
enhance
(2011)
being
grey
websites.
prone
matter
same
to
media
density
area
is
in
in
the
regulation.
See
empathy
communication
(both
cognitive
may
and
actually
lead
emotional).
to
See
an
increase
Carrier
et
al
(2015)
involved
Loh
is
generally
believed
that
it
is
not
digital
technology
as
such
and
inuences
empathy
,
but
the
way
technology
is
used.
See
(2014)
Digital
technology,
context
can
be
has
both
of
considered
technology
,
using
emotional
Essential
cognition
digital
and
RESEARCH
the
and
example
cognitive
Rosser
et
emotion
emotion
of
and
empathy
.
components.
al
(2007)
–
At
cognition
the
used
Empathy
technology
end
to
Playing
of
the
study
technology
section
the
and
there
is
interaction
cognitive
videogames
and
a
summary”.
summary
between
of
“Methods
digital
processes”.
surgeons
may
that
enhance
involve
related
rapid
skills
visuospatial
in
˚
self-report
˚
minutes,
was
Aim
playing
videogames
results
in
laparoscopic
was
used
outside
of
to
assess
the
as
the
an
games
asked
total
to
score
indicator
were
play
of
selected
3
research.
games
obtained
game
so
that
in
for
25
these
mastery.
they
games
The
required
fast
better
reaction
in
were
and
used
three
whether
performance
experience
performing
tasks.
investigate
questionnaire
videogame
Participants
surgery
empathy:
understanding
videogames
coordination
real-life
and
See
A
T
o
in
coincides
networking
“Digital
✪
of
school
that
the
context
by
It
In
a
and
face-to-face
Kanai
the
attention.
However
,
in
in
Carrier
social
Finally
,
cognition
a
There
measure
and
technology”.
and
precise
movements.
surgeons.
Results
Method
•
Correlational
Videogame
and
•
Participants
33
laparoscopic
Surgeons
and
As
in
part
a
of
triangular
•
their
of
regular
drills.
objects
through
The
researchers
and
the
Playing
a
Effects
✪
contexts
training,
example,
from
small
one
during
videogames
time.
surgeons
they
point
loop
measured
at
the
to
the
and
another
top
served
of
of
as
assessed
in
by
each
putting
triangle.
errors
an
two
made
indicator
of
ways.
(2012)–effects
of
not
playing
was
highly
performing
correlated
played
made
performed
the
with
videogames
37%
surgery
fewer
27%
surgery
less
time
for
errors
faster
drills.
more
in
than
than
three
surgery
drills,
their
non-
colleagues.
The
researchers
participants
and
were
situation.
explain
improved
subsequently
However
,
known
whether
any
effects
on
to
are
in
a
playing
motor
highly
and
these
specic
with
wider
videogames
skills
transfer
interacting
cognition
science
when
ne
able
these
not
on
that
their
digital
attention,
skills
tasks
to
a
and
new
it
technology
is
has
domain.
learning
Method
videogames
immediately
a
videogames
understanding
of
who
week
in
Conclusion
moved
surgery
.
was
errors
participated
lifted
number
This
Sanchez
RESEARCH
Essential
For
completion
performance
•
a
playing
series
needle
fewer
hours
surgeons.
Procedure
•
mastery
study
.
related
are
to
transferrable
the
tasks
to
wider
performed
Experiment;
independent
measures
design.
in
Participants
the
game.
60
university
students.
Aim
Procedure
T
o
investigate
how
transferrable
the
effects
of
playing
Participants
videogames
are
to
wider
domains
such
as
science
were
randomly
divided
into
two
groups.
learning.
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
49
•
The
spatial
game
•
The
training
(Halo:
non-spatial
involving
group
Combat
training
combining
played
a
rst-person
shooter
Evolved)
Participants
group
letters
to
played
form
a
verbal
words
game
spatial
(Word
these
Whomp).
After
Results
who
training
played
group)
participants
a
rst-person
gained
showed
higher
better
shooter
scores
game
on
the
understanding
of
(the
essay—
plate
tectonics.
playing
their
allocated
game,
participants
read
a
Conclusion
complex
text
about
plate
tectonics
that
contained
3,500
Reading
words
with
no
illustrations.
It
described
a
theoretical
about
illustrations
of
volcanic
eruptions.
After
reading,
participants
to
write
an
essay.
Independent
scorers
read
translate
and
assessed
the
extent
to
which
it
of
the
important
it
that
playing
plate
RELIABILITY
Reliability
Lack
of
OF
COGNITIVE
cognitive
of
the
accuracy
theories
processes
biases
(see
PROCESSES
refers
is
not
In
into
accuracy
of
Lack
of
would
to
their
assess
Moreno
to
get
a
the
mean
make
digital
the
easier
IN
THE
accuracy
degree
al
CONTEXT
and
students.
more
than
abstract
somewhat
rst-person
that
skills
are
inuence
popular
to
is
a
still
researchers
sent
out
a
attention.
memory
lot
spatial
information
representations.
different
shooter
from
what
game,
this
is
required
research
acquired
rational.
One
an
tasking
store
Modern
and
shorter
that
is
in
the
game
are
to
some
social
technology
positive,
because
open
in
so
use
has
that
that
of
using
is
imply
a
basic
when
memory
to
the
memory”).
been
digital
multiple
browser
,
example
reduced
would
multi-tasking.
do
the
to
attention
sensory
of
to
the
on
from
at
lead
attention
Models
aspect
us
looking
depends
media
allow
and
is
transmitted
“2.1.1
be
technology
too,
memory
essential
media,
domains.
will
answer
induced
tabs
We
digital
effects
is
devices
(multiple
retention
the
(see
of
is
infancy
.
or
store
aspect
to
store.
Even
attention
its
memory
If
wider
TECHNOLOGY
Can
other
information
in
for
of
STM
to
DIGITAL
of
failure
example,
often
linked
Induced
to
multi-
technology
.
things
real-time
at
once
updates
from
on).
METHOD
the
in
college
experience
found
off-task
not
OF
process.
something
that
everyday
the
cognitive
may
generalizable
in
a
activities
that
time
activity
in
a
students
they
were
being
students
sampling
sample
were
using
social
receiving
method
of
right
multi-
the
internet,
networking.
messages
to
a
group
of
the
message
questionnaire
now?”,
with
“How
participants
of
an
insight
what
week.
into
how
such
interested
duration
a
participants
questions
T
ypically
,
as
The
is
attention?
decision-
remember
multi-tasking
They
half
and
and
examples
“2.2.1
decisions
leads
used
of
we
forgetting
of
(2012)
seen
(see
heuristics
thinking
processes
for
have
technology
SAMPLING
“snapshot”
most
we
information,
et
university
tasking
or
how
in
We
memory
and
examples
cognitive
EXPERIENCE
T
o
Biases
performance
process
biases.
memory”)
these
true
Research
to
reconstructive
“2.2.2
making”).
that
leads
of
Reconstructive
•
without
verbal
concepts
performance.
in
tectonics
encode
tectonics.
extent
•
into
a
demonstrates
of
plate
to
demonstrated
when
understanding
of
one
the
Although
essay
model
requires
were
and
required
a
model
received
This
or
they
have
to
are
are
messages
allows
a
brief
you
a
their
response
to
doing
you?”
day
researchers
structure
in
answer
“What
engaged
6–10
method
participants
experiences
had
as
for
to
time,
their
as
the
gain
well
daily
participants
activities.
at
random
times
during
RESEARCH
✪
with
prevalent
school
and
immediately
Carrier
cognitive
and
on
Cheever
(2013)–the
induced
among
by
inuence
of
induced
multi-tasking
processes
understanding
Multi-tasking
highly
day
Rosen,
on
Essential
the
Procedure
the
use
students
of
and
digital
technology
negatively
is
correlated
achievement.
On-task
using
a
behaviour
checklist
“talking
book”,
on
the
and
of
off-task
activities
telephone”,
“reading
a
technology
such
as
“music
website”,
use
“email”,
on”,
“writing
on
was
“reading
the
assessed
“Facebook”,
a
computer”,
Aim
“stretching/walking
T
o
investigate
technology
,
the
relationship
multi-tasking
and
between
school
the
use
of
every
minute
After
the
during
the
These
observation
activities
were
noted
period.
achievement.
observation
containing
Method
Correlational
around”.
digital
their
participants
self-reported
lled
out
a
questionnaire
GPA.
study
.
Results
•
Participants
263
On
average
only
students.
and
50
Unit
2—Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
for
6
participants
minutes
averaged
only
maintained
before
switching
around
10
on-task
to
minutes
behaviour
off-task
on-task
behaviour
in
total.
•
Four
variables
that
reduced
on-task
the
of
start
had
the
strongest
behaviour
studying;
were:
correlations
technology
stretching/walking;
with
available
texting;
attention.
at
induced
using
focus
The
most
media
while
plausible
multi-tasking
explanation
is
is
detrimental
perhaps
to
that
attention
and
studying.
Facebook.
Follow-up
•
Off-task
behaviour
was
associated
with
reduced
This
achievement.
Those
students
who
accessed
explanation
least
once
during
the
15-minute
study
period
Conclusion
•
incidence
with
at
least
tasking
is
involves
corroborated
et
al
(2010)
by
further
who
studies,
showed
in
for
longitudinal
that
the
amount
of
screen
entertainment
time
GPAs.
predicted
The
Swing
had
research
lower
is
Facebook
example,
at
research
school
of
1/3
off-task
of
the
associated
Facebook
behaviour
study
with
use
in
time
lower
among
spent
school
students
off-task.
is
Such
achievement.
The
high,
attention
study
problems
involved
4
in
class.
measurements
over
a
13-month
period.
multi-
•
Observational
This
reported
particular
.
others,
•
The
data
was
incidences
not
study
paying
of
collected
staying
attention,
showed
that
from
teachers
off-task,
and
playing
so
who
interrupting
on.
games
and
watching
Notes
television
The
study
demonstrates
that
multi-tasking
induced
by
for
of
digital
technology
correlates
with
school
The
assumption
here
is
that
school
achievement
is
of
cognitive
abilities
as
well
as
such
of
Essential
Rosen
et
al
processes
Metacognitive
for
the
negative
Metacognitive
strategies
(2011)—compensating
The
effects
of
strategies
be
induced
are
for
a
can
used
used
to
media
when
compensate
multi-tasking.
you
a
day
(at
study
period)
predicted
an
the
increase
with
the
course
of
in
time.
researchers
concluded
that
excessive
use
of
digital
as
understanding
✪
the
problems
technology
RESEARCH
hours
a
•
reection
two
achievement
attention
(GPA).
than
the
beginning
use
more
the
negative
response.
depending
small,
may
were
the
medium
linked
effects
There
on
be
of
three
number
or
to
attention
decit.
multi-tasking
groups
of
text
of
participants
messages
they
received:
large.
consciously
Results
monitor
and
regulate
your
cognitive
processes.
•
The
Aim
T
o
more
lecture,
investigate
tasking
and
the
effects
response
of
delay
amount
on
of
•
multi-
attention
and
However
,
who
academic
this
chose
worse
Method
on
respond
independent
measures
messages
worse
test
some
a
student
student
depended
read
after
the
the
also
to
immediately
performance.
Experiment;
text
the
and
than
time
on
respond
receiving
to
response
to
them
students
(up
5
received
performed
the
did
during
on
the
delay:
the
test.
students
messages
signicantly
who
chose
minutes)
to
read
and
later
.
design.
Conclusion
Participants
185
college
students.
We
can
get
distracted
consciously
the
response
and
override
switch
to
the
automatic
off-task
to
the
distractor
.
for
the
negative
T
o
tendency
behaviour
some
extent
by
this
to
delaying
may
Procedure
compensate
Students
viewed
a
videotaped
lecture
and
were
a
test
to
assess
their
understanding.
During
all
students
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Low
(ACC)
Loh
text
and
messages
Kanai
that
matter
be
the
density
in
media
However
,
such
metacognitive
strategy
multi-
requires
cognitive
a
lot
effort.
required
(2014)—neurological
understanding
grey
may
received
induced
the
of
lecture,
of
then
tasking.
given
effects
correlates
of
media
multi-tasking
Participants
the
physiological
anterior
basis
of
cingulated
being
prone
cortex
75
healthy
adults.
to
Procedure
induced
media
multi-tasking.
Participants
Aim
T
o
out
investigate
the
physiological
correlates
of
a
went
self-report
through
measure
fMRI
of
scans
media
of
their
brain
and
lled
multi-tasking.
media
Results
multi-tasking.
There
Method
Correlational
grey
study;
variables
were
measured
by
was
a
matter
correlation
density
in
between
the
reported
multi-tasking
and
ACC.
a
Explanation
questionnaire
and
fMRI.
The
ACC
is
known
to
be
involved
Cognitive
in:
approach
to
behaviour
51
•
cognitive
require
•
control
selective
emotional
and
(for
example,
it
is
active
in
tasks
that
Note
attention)
The
motivational
regulation.
study
is
correlational,
explained
in
both
•
This
seems
to
suggest
a
reasonable
explanation:
people
prone
to
media
multi-tasking
also
demonstrate
Individuals
control
(over
their
attention)
and
a
reduced
a
regulate
their
message
emotional
MODERN
positive
(for
on
example,
receiving
it
the
in
urge
THE
POSITIVE
TECHNOLOGY
discussed
and
cognition.
so
negative
Here
Positive
is
to
ACC
further
a
far
in
AND
ON
this
NEGATIVE
COGNITIVE
section
inuences
of
highlights
digital
EFFECTS
in
may
study
skills
both
technology
Negative
on
•
wider
domains
EMOTION
processes
in
of
visuospatial
related
real-world
laparoscopic
as
and
modify
science
learning
COGNITION
are
is
closely
an
skills
that
of
thinking
memory
See
and
and
tasks
even
learning
about
(Rosser
be
The
example
of
media
digital
to
of
Essential
have
process
et
affects
grey
matter
density
in
Swing
et
al
in
general,
and
leads
increased
to
consumption
attention
problems,
(2010).
This
may
result
and
and
empathy
falling
with
scores
the
tasking
affects
OF
control
and
DIGITAL
“2.3
way
that
US
of
with
is
is
we
a
of
memory
Emotion
areas
•
product
The
GPA.
neuroimaging—media
that
are
responsible
regulation:
other
major
for
Loh
and
of
and
emotional
multi-
cognitive
Kanai
(2014).
of
feel,
question
the
is,
It
can
the
does
way
theory
dimension
other
inuence
mind.
of
See
of
their
a
special
”7.1.3
mind”
what
eyes.
they
feel
Perspective-
cognitive
ability
Development
in
“Unit
7
psychology”.
feel.
people
understand
through
component
Theory
people
people,
situation
consequence
The
one’
s
a
as
empathy
other
experience
includes
is
of
a
Developmental
modies
empathy
of
empathy
probably
cognitive
you
rst
is
feeling
viewed
dimension:
need
interaction
people
be
to
with
cognitively
to
as
feel
understand
digital
process
what
a
what
it.
technology
emotional
information?
take
and
college
time,
by
emotional
analyse
known
Hsing
(2011)—decline
the
course
Rosen,
multi-tasking
TECHNOLOGY
taking
“2.1.3
reactions
special
in
See
in
appraisal
O’Brien
in
achievement:
tectonics).
and
information:
Konrath,
correlated
perspectives
empathy
emotional
school
(2013)—media
corroborated
cognitive
Emotional
cognition
is
emotion.
trigger
the
This
of
framework”
cognitive
of
lower
transferred
CONTEXT
decision-making.
phenomenon
in
Cheever
al
understanding
average
been
a
dimension
RESEARCH
The
are
neuroplasticity
.
multi-tasking,
media
to
part
inuences
emotion
cognitive
ability
✪
ACC
(Sanchez
plate
THE
memory”
Conversely
,
and
may
linked
even
“Flashbulb
reactions
interaction
•
the
may
emotion.
Another
in
surgeons).
IN
integral
decision-maker
cognition”.
emotional
as
decision-making”.
our
mechanism.
videogames
such
cognition
such
Thinking
in
students
variables
“Adaptive
and
of
AND
know,
Emotional
can
volume
inuences
Induced
of
enhance
acquired
2012—study
the
multi-tasking
through
negatively
we
matter
multi-tasking.
OF
•
As
grey
media
PROCESSES
summary
.
applied
2007)—the
to
to
of
Carrier
Such
lesser
open
anticipation
•
•
potentially
inuences
Videogaming
be
with
susceptible
Engaging
see
•
be
gratication).
SUMMARY:
Research
emotion
immediately
can
ability
the
to
result
reduced
•
cognitive
the
who
more
are
so
directions.
and
the
trend
research
and
students
in
empathy
studies
emotional
to
scores
measure
over
time
empathy
(both
its
cognitive
components).
is
Participants
consistent
with
the
onset
of
the
digital
era
(especially
social
72
networks
and
mobile
samples
report
2009
Aim
T
o
examine
students
changes
over
in
empathy
scores
in
US
52
that
cross-temporal
Unit
college
meta-analysis;
Reactivity
(the
total
of
students
empathy
number
of
some
who
time
completed
a
self-
participants
between
1979
is
14,000).
almost
and
Procedure
The
Interpersonal
US
measure
college
time.
Method
A
of
phones).
Index
2—Cognitive
correlational
(IRI—Davis
approach
study;
1980)
to
was
of
used
behaviour
in
Interpersonal
measures
empathy
,
Reactivity
both
such
as
perspective-taking
Index
emotional
empathic
(cognitive).
(IRI)
and
is
a
personality
cognitive
concern
scale
components
(emotional)
and
Scores
on
the
IRI
were
correlated
with
the
year
of
4.30
data
collection.
4.20
4.10
Results
•
More
recent
generations
of
college
progressively
reported
lower
scores,
concern
perspective-taking.
4.00
students
both
on
empathic
3.90
and
3.80
•
The
most
dramatic
changes
occurred
between
2000
and
3.70
2009.
This
network
use
of
coincides
sites
cell
with
became
the
time
popular
,
as
when
well
as
major
with
social
the
wide
3.60
phones.
3.50
4.30
3.40
4.20
3.30
4.10
1979–89
1990–94
1995–99
2000–04
2006–09
k=7
k=11
k=10
k=22
k=14
4.00
Year
3.90
Figure
3.80
2.11
Source:
Note:
College
Konrath,
Capped
students'
O’Brien
vertical
and
bars
perspective-taking
Hsing
denote
(2011:
±
I
scores
by
period
186)
SE
3.70
Conclusion
3.60
Discussing
the
possible
reasons
behind
the
observed
trends,
3.50
the
authors
point
at
the
fact
that
this
decline
in
empathy
3.40
scores
coincides
people
3.30
1979–89
1990–94
1995–99
2000–04
2006–09
k=5
k=12
k=14
k=22
k=13
more
interpersonal
in
isolated
with
the
frequently
social
online
onset
of
remove
situations
the
digital
themselves
and
environments”
become
(Konrath,
era:
from
“younger
deep
immersed
O’Brien,
Year
Hsing
Figure
2.10
Source:
Note:
College
Konrath,
Capped
students’
O’Brien
vertical
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Some
bars
empathic
Hsing
denote
concern
(2011:
±
I
Carrier
et
effects
on
scores
by
period
186)
SE
al
(2015)—different
types
face-to-face
higher
activities
of
virtual
real-world
videogaming)
have
empathy
opportunities
and
Such
empathy.
opposite
digital
activity
have
different
Results
provide
communication.
of
empathy
understanding
digital
development
with
and
2011).
predict
activities
Other
for
the
•
increased
are
activities
associated
(such
Engaging
to-face
as
higher
•
effects.
Such
in
online
real-life
activities
to-face
higher
activities
communication
empathy
that
eventually
shown
to
be
led
to
face-
associated
with
scores.
predicted
communication
real-life
that
was
(that
empathy)
increased
was
were:
in
amounts
turn
social
of
face-
associated
networking
with
sites;
Aim
T
o
investigate
virtual
the
empathy
relationship
and
between
real-world
digital
browsing
websites;
purposes
other
using
email;
using
a
computer
for
activities,
than
being
online.
empathy
.
•
Conversely
,
more
such
activities
face-to-face
as
videogaming
communication
and
did
not
reduced
predict
real-
Method
world
Correlational
empathy
scores.
study
.
Conclusion
Participants
In
1,726
participants
born
in
the
digital
era
(after
investigating
and
empathy
Some
Procedure
digital
empathy
,
The
researchers
used
an
anonymous
online
the
relationship
between
digital
activities
1980).
we
need
activities
while
some
to
consider
may
lead
others
the
exact
digital
to
an
increase
in
(such
as
videogaming)
activity
.
real-world
affect
it
questionnaire
detrimentally
.
that
collected
empathy
of
information
scores.
empathy
Both
were
on
daily
emotional
media
and
usage
cognitive
and
components
measured.
Cognitive
approach
to
behaviour
53
SUMMARY:
DIGITAL
As
of
a
that
summary
it
is
not
empathy
,
•
For
the
example,
supporting
effects.
We
METHODS
Research
will
in
area,
as
be
is
is
exposed
to
believed
share
inuences
in
used.
it
can
more
STUDY
EMPATHY
generally
that
communication
friendships,
TO
it
such
AND
THE
more
this
taking
is
used
for
produce
personal
•
On
positive
will
the
as
be
BETWEEN
gaming)
other
mutual
both
online
understanding
and
and
ofine,
and
perspective-
enhanced.
hand,
activities
communication
can
DIGITAL
each
our
other
face-to-face
stories,
INTERACTION
with
sense
affect
that
and
empathy
TECHNOLOGY
are
not
virtual
scores
associated
empathy
with
(such
negatively
.
AND
PROCESSES
mentioned
methods.
limitations
this
technology
online
existing
studies
of
way
if
in
technology
USED
COGNITIVE
variety
research
digital
but
TECHNOLOGY
the
Each
in
this
method
context
of
Strengths
Observation
This
a
natural
many
can
the
digital
effects
It
data;
can
be
and
technology
summary
is
the
subject
at
the
on
key
cognitive
processes.
T
able
2.9
gives
is
points.
Research
to
on
biases
the
Rosen,
and
expertise
of
Notes
and
Cheever
observation
to
measure
aspects
once.
study
Carrier
(2013):
used
observers.
parameters
measured
of
of
depends
done
environment;
different
be
a
strengths
Limitations
in-depth
measurements
in
utilized
both
investigating
Method
uses
section
has
of
was
various
interaction
digital
technology
.
Swing
et
with
Observation
be
used
to
hypotheses
area,
but
used
to
cannot
test
it
in
this
can
be
measure
variables.
al
(2010):
observation
to
was
measure
used
attention
problems.
Minute-by-minute
This
provides
assessment
that
is
of
study
behaviour
detailed
especially
of
data
useful
in
the
multi-tasking.
We
can
(for
example,
assess
the
but
content
example,
what
the
not
Carrier
and
Cheever
(2013)
Facebook”),
(for
Rosen,
actions
“opens
type
exactly
does
on
Unlike
methods,
method
other
researchers
into
allows
to
gain
participants’
(questions
regarding
It
observational
this
can
insight
time-consuming
to
collect
process
data.
Enough
time
be
for
they
are
has
high
separately
because
it
is
they
well
the
may
be
considered
special
points
need
it
to
be
a
another
type
of
If
it
to
open-ended
reliable
questions,
experience
of
study
multi-tasking.
This
it
is
participants’
followed
by
content
activities.
analysis.
ecological
need
to
are
be
daily
for
includes
used
Participants
their
(2012)
doing).
validity—participants
living
al
asked
daily
This
et
We
it
observation.
“snapshot”
what
Moreno
and
and
experiences
be
how
an
is
difcult
special
structured
mention
of
sampling
a
of
suited
Facebook).
Experience
is
observation.
the
participant
This
motivated
to
follow
lives.
instructions.
Survey
or
questionnaire
Allows
us
to
variety
of
parameters
same
both
time;
measure
can
broad
and
Relies
on
makes
the
such
measure
observable
(behaviour)
a
at
it
as
self-report,
subject
social
Participants
variables
to
which
also
unobservable
distorted
estimates
values).
comes
such
(attitudes,
to
parameters
number
playing
of
hours
et
al
This
is
especially
because
the
technology
on
It
helpful
effects
of
digital
cognition
is
likely
postponed,
is
used
measure
to
variables.
online
spent
questionnaire
was
used.
Loh
(2014):
games.
time-consuming
difcult
to
collect
and
Swing
and
Kanai
al
was
13-month
we
can
was
media
et
testing
data.
are
Although
most
This
(2015):
anonymous
measure
study
survey
gaming
questionnaire
Longitudinal
a
measure
as
an
the
(2007):
to
it
Carrier
ones
al
experience.
give
when
et
used
background
desirability
.
may
Rosser
was
biases
a
used
to
multi-tasking.
(2010):
used
repeated
over
There
is
a
lack
longitudinal
a
in
period.
this
of
studies
area.
make
not
inferences
“A
predicts
B”,
Konrath,
O’Brien
and
Hsing
immediate.
we
Longitudinal
data
see
effects
how
the
technology
unfold
Neuroimaging
This
us
technology
neurological
allows
increased
Unit
to
usage
2—Cognitive
still
causes
cannot
B”.
possible
in
The
infer
that
latter
is
“A
only
experiments.
(2011):
were
special
study
Data
is
still
correlational.
Loh
generational
compared.
type
(the
and
of
This
is
a
longitudinal
cohort
Kanai
cohorts
method).
(2014)
When
as
of
a
it
is
used
method
of
of
digital
measuring
in
turn
it
may
be
considered
a
type
of
technology-
explain
may
to
digital
establish
this
to
us
time.
correlates
allows
us
of
in
technology;
cognition
54
allows
be
how
affected.
approach
to
behaviour
assisted
variables,
observation.
a
Meta-analysis
This
provides
estimates
biases
more
where
get
accurate
potential
cancelled
Requires
a
research
studies
used
out.
(for
a
large
similar
example,
body
of
Konrath,
all
which
(2011):
of
the
procedure
the
O’Brien
72
and
studies
Interpersonal
Hsing
that
used
Reactivity
usually
require
history
of
a
Index
same
Meta-analyses
certain
a
long
research
in
area.
questionnaire)
Correlational
It
study
the
in
is
easy
to
most
this
collect
widely
data.
used
It
is
method
A
cause–effect
cannot
be
relationship
Rosser
et
Rosen,
Carrier
al
This
(2007)
is
a
testing
established.
and
method
of
hypotheses.
Cheever
area.
(2013)
Rosen
delay
et
performance.
Loh
and
Swing
The
only
method
researchers
to
that
make
allows
This
requires
isolation
cause-
of
IV
inferences
rigorous
of
control
et
type
“A
inuences
confounding
or
T
able
there
of
HL
Parts
extension
of
The
these
includes
gives
cognitive
a
method
of
hypotheses.
of
texts
sent
to
the
(of
was
manipulated.
three
you
nine
approach
topics
that
potential
to
can
areas
a.
be
applied
from
Cognitive
to
which
any
exam
of
The
the
three
questions
processing
b.
parts
may
be
Reliability
of
the
cognitive
inuence
of
digital
technology
approach
to
behaviour
.
asked.
of
cognitive
c.
processes
cognitive
of
is
the
plenty).
behaviour
2.
This
(2011):
TIP
Combining
1.
al
potential
variables
are
(2010)
2.9
EXAM
This
which
B”.
al
(2014)
(2015)
testing
students
causes
al
with
(2012)
et
number
the
response
and
Rosen
and-effect
Kanai
et
Sanchez
careful
one
(2011):
correlated
test
Carrier
Experiment
al
was
Emotion
and
cognition
on
1a
1b
1c
2a
2b
2c
3a
3b
3c
processes
positive
modern
and
negative
technology
on
effects
cognitive
processes
3.
Methods
used
between
digital
cognitive
processes
T
able
2.10
There
is
to
study
the
technology
considerable
overlap
interaction
and
in
these
areas.
The
blocks
we
have
covered
in
this
section
address
all
nine
Cognitive
areas
holistically.
approach
to
behaviour
55
3
S O C I O C U LT U R A L
APPROACH
TO
B E H AV I O U R
T
opics
3.1
The
3.2
individual
and
the
3.1.1
Social
identity
3.1.2
Social
cognitive
3.1.3
Stereotypes
Cultural
3.2.1
origins
Culture
of
group
theory
behaviour
and
3.3
theory
its
and
inuence
on
cognition
behaviour
3.4
Cultural
inuences
identity
and
3.3.1
Enculturation
3.3.2
Acculturation
The
and
on
inuence
behaviour
individual
attitudes,
behaviours
of
(HL
globalization
on
individual
only)
cognition
3.2.2
3.1
Cultural
The
3.1.1
dimensions
individual
Social
In-group
SNOITINIFED
towards
group
procedure
created
benets
of
the
trivial
articially
to
group
that
is
biased
Social
in-group
paradigm—the
where
the
theory
favouritism—behaviour
the
Minimal
identity
and
group
experimental
differences
investigate
the
Social
are
on
intergroup
effects
of
discrimination—behaviour
disadvantages
ESSENTIAL
Social
Social
for
identity
theories
•
realistic
identity—the
that
group
of
is
a
The
theory
theories
aggressive
group
of
of
of
intergroup
intergroup
the
conict.
conict
social
interconnected
conict
included:
mere
basis
and
theory
(Sherif
social
identity
theory
are
based
on
concepts
fact
of
of
using
the
•
comparison
that
is
based
theory’
s
minimal
belonging
criteria)
to
two
can
different
trigger
groups
in-group
(even
on
favouritism
discrimination.
of
group
minimal
studies
group
have
been
studies
criticized
their
procedure:
group
allocation
is
not
for
being
random
articial
enough
the
matrices
out-group
•
claims
group
have
involve
forced
choice.
However
,
further
self-esteem
•
distinctiveness
the
of
trivial
in-group
does
been
paradigm.
support
this
criticism.
See
Locksley,
Hepburn
Ortiz
(1980)
favouritism.
supported
See
not
discrimination
Evaluation
Some
self-concept
as:
categorization
positive
of
such
and
•
part
1966).
research
•
the
membership
out-group
and
social
comparing
“them”)
personality
in
•
of
versus
creates
Minimal
claims
process
(“us”
of
out-groups
out-group
Evaluation
The
out-groups
process
and
social
theory
theory
existing
•
to
cognitive
in-groups
UNDERSTANDING
identity
Previously
the
into
discrimination
on
Out-group
people
comparison—the
in-group
Social
categorization
categorization—the
categorizing
Tajfel
by
et
of
social
identity
theory
research
al
The
theory
not
explain
has
great
explanatory
power
.
However
,
it
does
(1971)
individual
differences.
THEORY
SOCIAL
Social
aims
IDENTITY
identity
to
theory
explain
why
THEORY
is
a
theory
conict
of
and
intergroup
conict.
discrimination
It
the
•
Claims
identity
context
conict,
theory
of
that
factors
•
Realistic
conict
scarce
56
Unit
the
that
explanations
placed
of
in
personality).
largely
group
This
(Sherif
interests
3—Sociocultural
These
conict
theory
reasons
ignored
theory
intergroup
1.
intergroup
is
(that
theories
social
1966).
caused
approach
to
of
The
Social
behaviour
conict
is
of
terms,
and
“better”
or
social
in
is
not
belonging
to
in-group
provides
identity.
terms
“worse”
of
being
than
the
and
psychological
competition".
always
between
sufcient
categorization
social
variables
of
to
theory
resources
perception
their
attention
Cooperation
identity
over
discrimination
3.
by
over
social
mere
building
social
enough
"6.2.1
development
This
real
pay
See
categorization)
of
variables.
(competition
emphasized
not
Competition
the
2.
intrapersonal
conict
between
when
following.
the
resources).
understood
existing
personality
group
suggested
better
stressed
within
aggressive
is
previously
including
Theories
is,
did
variables.
Context
Social
and
occur
.
to
necessary
for
groups.
two
trigger
groups
(social
out-group
favouritism
individuals
with
People
dene
similar
to
members
of
or
a
means
different
other
of
themselves
in
from,
groups.
4.
Individuals
because
5.
Positive
it
social
in-group
(“better
process
6.
strive
be
than”)
of
When
social
leave
✪
on
the
and
is
certain
a
positive
social
identity
Some
self-esteem
based
on
as
distinctiveness:
positively
out-groups.
is
not
group
or
This
the
In
from
classied
different
involves
these
using
the
this
trivial
as
positive,
the
individuals
existing
will
group
try
have
The
reason
of
two
groups
for
the
supported
minimal
paradigm
members
criterion.
been
so-called
experimental
objective
make
claims
the
participants
groups
are
group
by
group
on
purely
research
paradigm
are
the
randomly
basis
cognitive
members
to
of
as
a
very
there
is
no
compete.
to
more
distinct.
T
ajfel
et
al
(1971)—minimal
group
to
two
(even
understanding
mere
basis
of
studies
comparison
identity
the
RESEARCH
The
their
perceived
social
either
Essential
achieve
identity
must
positively
to
increases
fact
of
of
out-group
criteria)
1
Participants
belonging
trivial
experiment
can
different
trigger
groups
in-group
favouritism
discrimination.
64
male
14–15.
students
They
participants.
each
other
of
were
They
a
school
tested
came
in
in
Bristol
eight
from
the
(England),
groups
same
of
aged
eight
school
and
knew
well.
Aim
T
o
investigate
behaviour
in
effects
a
of
minimal
social
categorization
group
on
Procedure
intergroup
•
paradigm.
At
stage
slides
Minimal
T
o
create
of
social
have
•
to
group
minimal
paradigm
categorization
be
There
on
groups—that
per
is,
se—
to
the
investigate
following
the
effects
conditions
no
face-to-face
interaction
•
Following
between
kind
participants.
•
There
be
anonymity
regarding
group
Criteria
and
for
completely
required
•
to
Responses
the
they
social
do
The
in
participants
strategy
competition
•
unrelated
the
should
economically
•
categorization
(that
have
is,
with
a
for
Decisions
made
in
outcomes.
not
just
to
symbolic
very
Rewards
and
number
your
on
more
experiment
real
be
should
money
to
requested
to
were
with
estimate
shown
clusters
the
of
40
dots
number
of
experimenters
were
also
and
taking
four
that
they
were
divided
the
that
the
and
that
completely
would
on
“overestimators”
a
of
told
based
participants
in
advantage
Participants
be
told
interested
investigate
participants’
for
convenience
previous
a
the
different
group
task—a
of
four
stage
taken
be
on
to
their
they
and
2
own
and
were
shows
(distribution
another
an
in
room
of
separate
penalties
given
a
in
of
a
by
one
cubicles.
real
booklet
example
rewards)
one
They
money
with
participants
where
18
to
they
had
to
distribute
others.
matrices.
were
worked
For
T
able
this
3.1
matrix.
all.
involve
should
some
be
used,
for:
are
in
the
group
of:
overestimators
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2
of
−25
−21
−17
−13
−9
−5
−1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
number
other
4
of
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
−1
−5
−9
−13
−17
−21
−25
group
3.1
Example
Based
on:
T
ajfel
Some
of
matrices
the
gives
the
matrix
al
(1971)
in
different
members
of
et
matrices
the
some
•
At
in
rationality
benet
participants
second)
tokens.
penalties
T
able
•
this,
well,
of
rewards
should
a
“underestimators”.
to
not
than
group
Member
the
are
others).
based
example,
should
and
would
group
•
value
You
Member
trivial
participants
economic
favouritism
example,
the
For
the
response
the
strategy
sense,
real
any
one
in-group
common
what
be
experiment.
not
preferable
of
to
should
less
judgment,
as
presence.
membership.
•
of
those
should
for
screen
researchers
be
(categorization)
dots.
satised.
should
a
1
(each
of
the
the
of
booklet
(as
choice
In
the
prot
Participants
always
themselves.
All
involved
the
in
an
some
allotted
it
is
above,
Results
•
anonymous
two
the
In
members
choice
member
is
that
14,
to
The
mean
was
9.2
•
and
The
choices
members
group)
others,
anonymous
never
choice
in
(compared
the
to
different-group
7.5
as
the
point
matrices
of
maximum
fairness).
7.5.
money
were
members
above).
two
was
in-group
fairness
participants
two
example
between
example
to
maximum
in
was
in-group,
out-group.
maximum
point
the
groups
to
of
of
in
were
fairness
the
the
same-group
in-group
more
closely
or
conditions
two
(two
members
clustered
around
of
the
the
out-
point
(7.5).
because
Conclusion
names
were
replaced
by
codes.
They
were
told
that
Participants
at
the
end
of
the
task
they
would
be
given
group
amount
of
money
others
had
allocated
to
them
was
worth
1/10
of
a
discrimination
in-group
when
favouritism
categorized
into
and
out-
groups
based
(one
on
point
demonstrate
whatever
trivial
criteria.
penny).
Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
57
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
T
ajfel
et
al
(1971)—minimal
group
would
understanding
Participants
favourable
sacrice
intergroup
experiment
group
and
personal
gain
to
Klee
achieve
be
or
2
split
into
Kandinsky
,
groups
based
whereas
in
on
whether
reality
the
they
preferred
allocation
was
random.
differences.
Different
matrices
were
used,
and
this
allowed
experimenters
Aim
to
T
o
clarify
the
strategy
used
by
participants
when
distinguish
Participants
boys
rst
of
the
maximum
joint
same
age
and
from
the
same
school
as
in
the
•
maximum
difference
(MD):
the
the
of
the
second
experiment
was
based
on
two
the
rst
experiment.
The
procedure
was
largely
but
the
criterion
for
categorization
and
the
in
the
booklets
were
were
paintings—one
to
choose
the
one
and
Member
number
that
they
in
payoff
the
between
in
points
(MIP)
favour
matrix
the
of
of
that
payoffs
the
in-group
maximizes
for
the
the
members
of
were
manipulated
(MJP
,
MIP
and
in
MD)
such
a
would
way
that
the
contradict
three
each
in
the
matrix
shown
in
T
able
3.2
as
other
.
participants
different.
slides
Kandinsky
penalties
number
group
T
able
3.2
Based
on:
Boy
choice
liked
with
and
one
better
.
for:
pairs
of
by
abstract
but
Klee—and
They
were
told
asked
that
they
from
MD
is
the
left
to
the
minimized.
choosing
option
1,
choosing
option
13.
A
right
MJP
“pure”
while
an
and
MD
MIP
choice
MJP+MIP
are
maximized
would
strategy
dictate
would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
XYZ
of
your
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
XYZ
of
the
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
dictate
(Klee)
Member
other
shown
by
Rewards
group
the
number
groups.
example,
move
Participants
point
total
matrices
For
used
were:
the
strategies
same,
which
the
Matrices
of
(MJP):
highest
in-group
Procedure
design
strategy
,
payoff
the
maximum
experiment.
results
to
•
difference
The
of
choices.
corresponds
48
types
making
•
between-group
three
No.
(Kandinsky)
T
ajfel
et
al
(1971)
meant
1
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
that
their
group
would
compare
favourably
to
the
19
(in-group)
other
Boy
No.
group.
2
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
(out-group)
Conclusion
Subjects
Maximizing
the
Maximum
difference
joint
Largest
profit
to
reward
sacrice
favourable
group
intergroup
and
personal
differences.
gain
Note
to
that
achieve
the
ndings
of
in-group
this
study
lend
distinctiveness
support
in
particular
(claim
as
given
5
in
to
the
idea
“Theory:
of
positive
social
identity
Results
theory”).
Participants
demonstrated
means
preferred
they
EVALUATION
OF
a
their
clear
group
TAJFEL’S
preference
to
get
less
for
MD.
money
if
This
this
RESEARCH
•
Strengths
•
A
major
control
•
strength
over
of
separate
ecological
validity
school
theory
is
research,
boys
now
so
procedure
confounding
Although
all
the
from
can
limited
the
supported
same
by
accumulated
the
high
level
a
be
and
criticized
samples
(for
country),
large
evidence
However
,
when
of
variables.
studies
and
was
lack
of
removed
Ortiz
of
and
identity
tossed
˚
empirical
strong.
•
The
˚
minimal
group
articial
in
studies
their
have
been
procedure.
criticized
T
eenage
a
coin
competitive,
that
was
and
the
suggestive
of
matrices
involved
competition.
This
may
entirely
58
Unit
demand
approach
to
the
matrices.
conducted
a
even
random
Locksley
,
series
of
could
participants
see
that
into
group
groups
so
membership
random
allocate
a
to
certain
group
number
of
members,
poker
thus
the
forced
choice
associated
with
matrices.
forced
Findings
of
T
ajfel's
original
may
characteristics.
3—Sociocultural
allocate
participants
to
from
(1980)
remained
explicitly
be
in
trigger
choice
effects
groups
for
boys
•
choice
to
was
chips
the
they:
participants
using
naturally
forced
where
removing
being
made
that
gave
Limitations
categorization
Hepburn
experiments
example,
social
body
is
for
social
researchers
behaviour
these
conditions.
studies
were
replicated
even
EVALUATION
•
T
ajfel’
s
OF
theory
applied
to
teenagers
In
both
that
to
cliques
is
SNOITINIFED
self-reactiveness
result
as
of
the
in
the
from
the
to
is
belief
can
football
a
group
based
•
Social
fans.
have
in-group
social
be
behaviour
and
the
of
offers
occurs
even
•
process
are
of
that
these
transmitted
In
theory
theory
,
cognitive
theory
their
theories
are
people
are
agents
of
learning
other
that
factors:
a
that
perform
from
How
occurs
as
actions
individual
exactly
words,
by
how
also
this
Albert
development
theory
indirectly
a
as
in
to
does
do
individual
this
people
question
Bandura.
is
learn
social
they
can
behaviour
master
•
the
•
identication
idea
•
self-efcacy
.
of
a
more
rely
than
individual
on
social
others?
these
identity
for
Additional
observed
model
(physical,
and
differences.
of
three
cognitive
interacting
and
environment
extent
to
particular
human
its
previous
proposed
by
Bandura.
rests
on
the
idea
that
cognitive
•
Most
version—
of
directly
which
individuals
believe
behaviour
agency
theory
sheer
them
test
Bobo
Ross
and
Ross
theory
is
that
also
into
includes
supported
correlational
idea
of
the
This
in
a
variety
of
research
of
these
in
nature
“reciprocity”.
studies
theoretical
and
and
do
However,
the
fact
explanation
that
lend
not
the
results
support
model.
An
experiments.
example
is
the
study
of
Perry,
Perry
to
and
idea
(1986)
See
Some
studies
apply
complex
use
large
cross-cultural
data
sets
and
(1961)
an
extension
of
social
the
following
major
techniques
of
statistical
modelling.
These
learning
also
provide
support
for
the
idea
of
reciprocal
aspects:
determinism.
reciprocal
is
learning
learning).
doll
are
the
amount
well
studies
•
why
competition
studies.
Social
of
(observational
Bandura’
s
cognitive
theory
explain
explain
factors
Self-efcacy—the
well
•
Social
to
not
people
determinism—a
Rasmussen
supported
Bandura,
does
some
self-esteem
personal
emotional),
the
is
for
no
actions
answers
proposed
is
theory
,
learning
occur
do
required
Reciprocal
forethought,
t
can
is
theory
intentionality
,
people
socialization.
occur?
cognitive
Social
there
people?
inuential
social
theory
why
building
Social
An
identity
differences:
belief
explanation
resources.
Social
look
an
when
others.
learning—learning
other
theory
over
a
identity
on
identity
discrimination
UNDERSTANDING
norms
other
of
It
as
self-reectiveness
consequences
transmission
to
includes
and
observing
ESSENTIAL
Cultural
self-esteem
such
to
cognitive
behaviour;
Observational
of
According
superior
agency—the
own
behaviour
belonging
products
people’
s
group
Social
their
or
THEORY
power
.
phenomena
out-groups.
these
Human
the
IDENTITY
explanatory
people
value
upon
their
3.1.2
in
large
real-life
examples
tendency
theory
,
has
many
of
down
SOCIAL
See
Williams
and
Williams
(2010)
determinism
THEORY
THE
In
IDEA
his
THAT
social
are
two
•
Direct
an
LEARNING
learning
types
of
theory
,
negative),
Bandura
OCCUR
INDIRECTL
Y
suggested
that
there
learning.
learning
action
CAN
and
occurs
when
experiences
which
its
reinforces
an
individual
consequences
or
inhibits
performs
(positive
further
or
(OBSERVATIONAL
of
socialization
practices.
was
it
•
this
another
learning
person’
s
Bandura
explain
rst
way
to
was
behaviourism,
in
learning
the
felt
occurs
actions
when
and
is
this
suggested
learning,
was
the
which
direct.
behaviourist
that
to
such
of
incorporate
things
social
and
as
language
learning
explain
or
theory
indirect
repetition
idea
that
lear ning
can
an
their
individual
observing
others
occur
In
indirectly
following
implications.
other
the
learning
the
was
trial
enough
to
explain
theory
theory
implicit
words,
all
lear ning)
though
has
the
consequences.
predominant
made
approach
not
social
(observational
observes
•
all
able
learning
advantage
action.
Indirect
When
was
The
learning.
The
of
including
religious
that
LEARNING)
and
It
a
learning
assumption
learning
the
of
as
is
for
•
In
that
not
necessary
learning
our
to
learning
whose
to
demonstrate
the
actual
behaviour
occur
.
we
behaviour
depend
we
on
available
models—people
observe.
described
error
.
The
idea
in
series
that
people
learn
from
watching
others
was
tested
Bandura
complex
a
of
Bandura’
s
famous
Bobo
doll
experiments.
process
Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
59
RESEARCH
The
rst
and
of
Ross
the
Bandura,
Bobo
doll
Ross
experiments
and
was
Ross
(1961):
Bandura,
Bobo
Ross
(1961)
doll
Stage
The
experiment
2
child
was
situation
was
taken
to
created
another
to
room
“instigate”
and
the
a
frustrating
child’
s
Aim
aggression.
T
o
nd
out
how
observing
an
adult
model
when
aggressively
towards
an
inatable
doll
(Bobo
doll)
subsequent
aggressive
the
child
interest
was
was
given
sparked
attractive
and
the
toys,
play
but
began,
the
inuences
child
children’
s
The
behaving
was
separated
from
the
toys
and
taken
to
a
third
behaviour
.
room
instead.
Method
Stage
The
key
method
is
a
laboratory
experiment
(the
The
was
manipulated,
the
DV
was
measured).
The
measured
the
DV
(children’s
DV
one-way
was
structured
observation
through
a
in
in
the
room
third
room,
contained
which
toys
contained
similar
the
rst
rooms,
including
a
slightly
to
smaller
of
the
Bobo
doll.
Observation
at
this
stage
lasted
mirror.
for
children
20
The
Participants
72
The
oneversion
way
measured
mirror.
subsequent
those
behaviour)
was
way
a
researchers
3
IV
(36
girls
and
36
boys)
aged
minutes.
researchers
including
3–6.
acts
such
copied
had
a
checklist
categories
from
the
as
of
behaviours
imitative
distinctive
to
observe,
aggression
behaviour
of
(aggressive
the
adult
model
Procedure
at
The
children
were
split
up
randomly
in
a
number
stage
(see
below).
First,
they
were
allocated
to
one
of
•
three
Aggressive
adult
by
•
model
model
behaved
a
adult
•
Control
role
model
were
(24
children)—in
aggressively
this
towards
group
the
the
Bobo
doll
•
not
at
that
by
the
adult,
for
example
shooting
a
dart
doll).
model
followed
replaced
group—
this
by
(24
a
children)—in
similar
script,
non-aggressive
group
had
no
this
but
children
of
to
the
aggressive
aggressive
model
behaviour
increased
among
the
children.
group
aggressive
of
frequency
•
Imitation
likely
actions.
and
model.
the
Boys
in
than
same-sex
in
sex
were
the
of
the
more
role
model
conditions
model
likely
conditions
where
were
the
sex
was
of
more
the
child
different.
to
be
aggressive
to
imitate
than
girls
across
1
child
was
seated
in
one
cor ner
of
a
room
and
an
in
another
cor ner.
The
child
was
given
groups.
adult
•
model
Bobo
Exposure
all
A
modelled
the
the
•
Stage
acts
Results
script.
Non-aggressive
actions
(aggressive
groups.
role
following
the
aggression
the
gun
following
non-imitative
of
were
groups
1),
prints
Boys
were
while
stickers
to
play
with,
and
the
model
had
a
more
likely
were
more
physical
aggression
and
T inkertoy
girls
likely
to
imitate
verbal
aggression.
set,
Conclusion
a
mallet
and
a
1.5-metre
tall
inatable
Bobo
doll.
The
The
script
that
the
adult
model
followed
in
the
main
conclusion
additional
condition
was
to
spend
some
time
playing
with
gender-related
set
and
then
to
tur n
to
the
Bobo
doll
and
towards
it,
both
verbally
and
the
non-aggressive
quietly
with
the
(apart
was
from
that
lear ning
was
supported:
the
lear ning
idea
can
of
indeed
indirect
and
new
behaviours
can
be
lear ned
by
simply
physically.
observing
In
study
behave
be
aggressively
the
ndings)
the
observational
toy
from
aggressive
condition
the
model
THEORY
AS
AN
just
others.
played
toys.
THEORY
SOCIAL
Of
COGNITIVE
course,
to
say
automatically
that
leads
oversimplication.
simply
to
observing
learning
There
are
this
many
a
EXTENSION
OF
behaviour
behaviour
cognitive
would
factors
be
an
SOCIAL
LEARNING
•
identication
•
self-efcacy
.
that
RECIPROCAL
mediate
this
inuence.
Bandura
claimed
that
cognition
be
viewed
as
a
mediator
between
environmental
behaviour
.
So,
instead
of
the
classic
behaviourist
personal
he
assumed
“stimulus–cognition–
reaction”.
social
and
a
more
Bandura
complex
theory
created
the
(1986)
broader
expanded
version
theory)
to
account
for
all
these
from
social
learning
the
theory
,
major
aspects.
These
•
reciprocal
•
the
idea
idea
of
observational
social
theory
inherited
included
from
other
human
Unit
agency
3—Sociocultural
interacting
and
emotional),
environment.
of
each
example,
may
will
inuence
reciprocity
other
implies
mutually,
approach
to
behaviour
person’
s
that
the
in
that
a
on.
An
conict.
factor
emotional
example
emotional
person’
s
the
three
bidirectional
of
this
of
will
state
may
state
behaviour,
behaviour
environmental
person’
s
a
a
inuence
the
in
60
and
concept
This
were:
determinism
of
three
factors
way.
nuances.
learning
cognitive
of
cognitive
on
For
Apart
model
(social
inuence
cognitive
a
(physical,
formula
The
learning
is
factors
formula
behaviour
“stimulus—reaction”,
determinism
stimuli
factors:
and
DETERMINISM
needs
Reciprocal
to
THEORY
others
then
how
in
factor)
turn
(environment).
continue
(personal
be
(personal
which
to
factor),
inuence
and
aggression
so
escalates
Behaviour
This
means
that
self-reecting
human
and
beings
are
self-regulating,
proactive.
IDENTIFICATION
Learning
identify
is
is
perceived
This
may
Environmental
factors
factors
3.1
Reciprocal
HUMAN
do
can
master
the
belief
not
simply
react
to
are
agents
RESEARCH
of
their
own
important
in
as
observer
children
Bandura,
the
and
more
and
can
closely
enhanced
model
were
Ross
is
the
likely
Ross’
s
when
there
observer
.
to
imitate
(1961)
the
study
.
the
extent
Perry,
Perry
and
expected
cognitive
“I
particular
to
can
do
skill
which
it”.
or
individuals
The
prerequisite
behaviour
.
theory
for
In
believe
claims
modelling
other
they
that
words,
it
is
self-efcacy
is
is
and
a
lack
of
self-efcacy
,
the
observed
observer
behaviour
.
may
not
even
behaviour
.
Rasmussen
to
replicate
(1986)—aggression
understanding
Self-efcacy
✪
is
a
important
there
attempt
Essential
the
environmental
If
inuences—they
in
if
determinism
AGENCY
beings
between
why
model
occur
Identication
SELF-EFFICACY
an
Human
to
model.
similarity
Self-efcacy
Figure
likely
the
explain
same-sex
Personal
more
with
the
and
observed
behaviour
.
self-efcacy
in
children
Results
consequences
determinants
of
are
both
aggressive
Aggressive
behaviour
schoolchildren.
children
aggression.
behaviour
oneself
They
would
from
reported
were
lead
aversive
also
to
that
more
it
rewards,
treatment
is
easier
condent
for
by
to
perform
that
example,
aggressive
protecting
others.
Aim
T
o
explore
factors
the
that
whether
to
links
might
between
inuence
behave
aggression
children’
s
and
two
decisions
cognitive
about
Conclusion
Children’
s
aggressively
.
perceptions
knowledge
that
of
the
contribute
to
of
their
self-efcacy
consequences
aggressive
of
their
and
children’
s
actions
are
factors
behaviour
.
Method
Correlational
study
(questionnaires).
Notes
•
and
evaluation
Bandura’s
model
of
reciprocal
determinism
is
Participants
difcult
Elementary
schoolchildren
(mean
age
11.3
years),
split
aggressive
and
a
non-aggressive
test
in
an
experimental
setting.
Perry,
into
Perry
an
to
and
Rasmussen
(1986)
is
a
typical
example
group.
of
a
study
in
to
examine
this
the
area.
It
uses
relationship
a
correlational
among
several
design
variables
Procedure
relevant
Children
responded
to
two
questionnaires.
One
of
only
measured
children’
s
perceptions
of
self-efcacy
(in
to
the
model,
but
of
course
the
evidence
them
this
provides
indirect
support
to
the
idea
of
reciprocal
case
determinism.
perceptions
of
their
ability
to
perform
aggression).
The
•
other
one
measured
children’
s
beliefs
about
the
It
is
the
looking
and
punishing
consequences
of
aggression
(their
positive
and
negative
consequences
of
at
number
various
of
correlational
aspects
of
the
studies
model)
and
(all
the
fact
beliefs
that
about
large
reinforcing
correlational
evidence
ts
well
into
the
theoretical
aggressive
explanation
that
lends
support
to
social
cognitive
theory.
behaviour).
Williams
RESEARCH
Williams
and
evidence
for
B,
but
B
Williams
the
also
researchers:
•
collected
a
large
and
applied
see
if
The
data
set
to
get
determinism
design
(data
mathematics
across
complex
the
simple
attempted
reciprocal
A).
Williams
was
(2010)—reciprocal
more
(A
direct
inuences
correlational,
but
Results
determinism
of
this
determinism
reciprocal
33
mathematics
achievement
in
self-
15-year-old
nations)
techniques
reciprocal
on
model
of
ts
can
perform
data
modelling
better
than
to
24
of
cultural
cope
well
performing
statistical
the
they
analysis
in
well
in
in
mathematics
were
the
determinism
transcends
schoolchildren
•
(2010)
of
inuences
the
efcacy
idea
and
is
33
a
supportive
nations,
universal
differences.
with
on
reciprocal
schoolchildren
tests.
mathematics
that
phenomenon
mathematics
mathematics
well
of
suggesting
indeed
At
tests
the
tend
same
further
that
who
believe
to
time,
increases
their
self-efcacy
.
other
models.
Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
61
3.1.3
Stereotypes
Illusory
SNOITINIFED
a
correlation—a
person
when
in
to
perceive
reality
they
a
cognitive
are
not
prophecy—a
behaviour
result
a
of
between
that
two
leads
prejudice
events
entire
change
others’
in
an
individual’
s
expectations
about
can
of
people;
ESSENTIAL
stereotypes
existing
are
the
differences
are
we
about
develop
in
a
(beliefs),
is
no
make
(behaviour);
generalizations
about
groups
threat—the
conrm
a
anticipation
negative
of
a
situation
stereotype
that
about
group
unlike
no
that
of
Illusory
stereotypes
between
different
objects
they
groups.
from
and
ignore
are
In
other
these
presented
cases
stereotypes
schemas
situations.
certain
They
details,
reason
to
suspect
that
they
correlation
actually
the
in
that
attentional
are
but
stimuli.
It
about
memory-based
occurs
can
during
explain
minority
groups.
judgments
resources
are
encoding
formation
and
when
(Hilton,
serially
negative
However
,
only
available
of
of
it
only
occurs
enough
Hippel
1996).
otherwise
Social
there
to
group
biased
sources
stereotypes
simplied
cognitive
about
discrimination
UNDERSTANDING
Stereotypes
Sometimes
are
notion
and
intended
potentially
one’
s
preconceived
are
Stereotype
this
individual
Stereotype—a
(attitudes)
stereotypes
related
Self-fullling
as
mechanism
relationship
represent
categorization
enhances
the
formation
of
illusory
reality
correlations.
inaccurately.
a
biased
the
is
However,
distorted
existence
this
of
or
of
second
other
group
kind
psychological
stereotypes
representation
of
differences
stereotype
of
actually
reality,
when
that
there
has
provide
suggesting
are
been
none.
the
It
focus
Effects
of
Stereotypes
•
People
research.
stereotypes
have
who
behaviour
of
theories
the
See
have
been
proposed
for
the
formation
Members
of
second
kind
of
stereotype
outlined
above.
The
illusory
•
social
correlation—see
categorization
theory)—see
FORMATION
following
stereotypes:
OF
ideas
illusory
Hamilton
(which
Johnson,
links
Schaller
and
to
Gifford
social
reality
perceive
they
and
Mullen
occur
.
It
so
are
place
The
are
often
used
correlation
is
a
to
and
a
cognitive
relationship
not
related.
(such
is
as
when
frequency
happens
group
that
are
Essential
Illusory
presented
two
explain
social
the
origin
of
categorization.
mechanism
between
This
is
a
that
two
type
of
statistically
this
leads
events
of
the
stereotype
(stereotype
threat).
by
See
changing
Steele
and
(1995)
acceptable
to
a
less
also
a
frequent,
person
and
statistically
Hamilton
a
occurs
this
So
and
when
the
negative
co-occurrence
two
events
behaviour)
is
(belonging
co-occur
,
exaggerated,
which
the
to
a
negative
stereotype
about
the
minority
gives
group.
classic
study
of
illusory
correlation
see
Hamilton
For
and
bias
events
(1976)
co-
minority
behaviours
Social
illusory
categorization
correlation
Johnson,
frequent
than
Gifford
(1976)—illusory
understanding
correlation
of
group
a
overestimated.
negative
less
and
is
from
behaviours.
minority
when
cognitive
infrequent
co-occurrence
encountering
statistically
crime)
RESEARCH
✪
(1968)
may
(2000)
Gifford
takes
itself
(1976)
a
that
Jacobson
group
identity
rise
in
and
the
(self-fullling
STEREOTYPES
correlation
to
group
stereotyped
reinforce
behaviour
frequency
person
behaviour
.
inuence
are:
•
Illusory
stereotyped
on
may
of
Aronson
The
stereotype
most
their
prominent
behaviour
effects
Rosenthal
the
inadvertently
the
a
on
of
stereotypes
•
Several
range
hold
of
prophecy).
Formation
a
in
Schaller
has
the
and
been
shown
formation
Mullen
of
to
interact
stereotypes.
with
See
(2000)
correlation
Participants
during
the
encoding
of
serially
104
undergraduates.
stimuli.
Procedure
Aim
T
o
Participants
investigate
occurrence
of
illusory
correlations
infrequent
based
on
the
co-
events.
and
of
groups
A
researchers
or
62
Unit
3—Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
read
undesirable
a
and
did
stereotypes
series
of
behaviours
B.
not
to
The
sentences
groups
want
any
interfere
describing
performed
were
by
abstract
previously
with
the
because
existing
task.
desirable
members
associations
T
able
3.3
summarizes
the
39
sentences
given
to
the
After
participants.
Group
Desirable
behaviours
Undesirable
A
Group
B
how
desirable
and
9
27
8
4
12
26
the
sentences,
many
members
undesirable
participants
of
each
were
group
asked
to
performed
behaviours.
Results
Participants
members
T
otal
all
T
otal
18
behaviours
reading
estimate
13
overestimated
of
the
minority
the
frequency
group
with
performed
which
negative
39
behaviours.
T
able
3.3
Based
•
on
this
Group
of
•
B
this
information,
was
group
Undesirable
•
the
were
were
less
The
ratio
of
and
there
group
a
church”
B
no
read
Conclusion
clear
.
featuring
members
in
the
of
sentences,
undesirable
exactly
the
correlation
studies
with
a
just
as
in
real
behaviours
same
(18/8
between
=
in
9/4).
behaviours
group
event
minority
an
So,
statements
group
A,
did
one
by
one,
volunteer
for
work
effects
variety
of
of
correlation
groups
presentation
that
the
distinctiveness:
group
of
distinct
is
a
group
illusory
undesirable
event,
and
behaviour.
according
to
between
correlation
encountering
distinct
events,
(correlation)
membership.
a
The
was
member
so
is
caused
of
the
encountering
Co-occurrence
Hamilton
and
of
Gifford,
is
example:
for
a
were
found
samples
these
CORRELATION
and
effects
in
many
research
experimental
have
been
as
situations.
are
of
effects
made
retrieve
memory
that
material.
information
the
effect
when
simultaneously
stimulus
subjects
disappear
It
discovered
based
Johnson,
So,
are
the
there
groups
from
(Hilton,
illusory
correlation
Schaller
and
Mullen
stereotype
people
correlation
excessive
illusory
their
of
where
formation
evaluate
is
groups
limited
in
a
to
memory-
fashion.
Illusory
judgments
with
only
mechanism
when
about
occurs.
is
a
situations
•
about
argued
association
and
overestimated.
ILLUSORY
limitations
Illusory
perceived
behaviour
instance
two
and
well.
•
a
researchers
by
to
was
behaviour).
OF
Illusory
There
undesirable
likely).
correlation
these
member
LIMITATIONS
as
was
real
(desirable
However
,
is
membership.
Participants
“Bruce,
as
following
(sentences
frequent.
desirable
group
was
half
behaviours
life,
A
the
minority
correlation
was
on
effects
increased
Hippel
(2000)—social
formation
demands
is
also
one’
s
inhibited
attention.
disappeared
cognitive
load
in
on
when
For
studies
the
there
example,
where
participants
1996).
categorization
in
the
formation
RESEARCH
of
Essential
✪
Social
stereotypes
the
understanding
categorization
enhances
the
formation
of
illusory
stimulus
undesirable
presentation
(sentences
with
desirable
or
behavioural).
correlation.
Results
Social
Procedure
A
procedure
(1976)
like
study
the
was
one
used
combined
in
with
Hamilton
a
social
and
Gifford’
s
categorization
Social
manipulation.
Participants
the
or
nothing
that
they
about
were
their
a
group
member
of
Social
one
of
groups.
who
were
about
their
group
EFFECTS
There
is
a
First,
OF
range
found
and
assigned
of
in
one
membership
of
effects
who
the
the
hold
of
a
the
ON
the
groups
before
no
categorization
after
stimulus
into
minority
illusory
the
effect
into
minority
on
the
the
group
formation
majority
presentation)
group
had
before
stimulus
correlation.
group
little
after
of
stimulus
stereotype.
(either
effect
on
before
illusory
stereotypes
study
on
may
group.
of
or
learned
after
BEHAVIOUR
stereotype
stereotyped
in
of
either
phenomenon
demonstrated
Jacobson
to
STEREOTYPES
people
behaviour
is
or
had
the
the
correlations.
Those
•
knew
learned
into
eliminated
categorization
presentation
either
membership
categorization
presentation
An
behaviour
.
inuence
example
self-fullling
of
•
the
of
this
prophecy
Rosenthal
and
Second,
members
inadvertently
their
behaviour
apprehension.
stereotype
of
the
reinforce
as
a
This
threat.
stereotyped
the
result
has
See
stereotype
of
been
group
by
increased
anxiety
demonstrated
Steele
and
itself
may
changing
in
Aronson
or
research
of
(1995).
(1968).
Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
63
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Steele
“being
and
Aronson
(1995)—stereotype
risk
Aronson
of
(1995)
conrming
a
dene
stereotype
negative
threat
stereotype
as
group”.
Stereotype
threat
triggers
an
“to
involved
individual
assumption
demonstrate
behaviour
that
supports
verbal
the
psychological
problems”
(Steele,
linking
test
factors
Aronson
1995).
the
was
existing
that
racial
the
stereotypes,
to
so
ability
black
would
participants
the
faced
existing
understand
solving
to
activate
unintentionally
better
in
about
The
one’s
threat
ability:
understanding
and
at
Steele
the
threat
of
fullling
the
stereotype.
stereotype.
Results
Aim
•
T
o
investigate
test
performance
as
a
function
of
White
and
threat
in
white
and
black
participants
performed
equally
in
the
diagnostic
stereotype
the
non-diagnostic
condition.
participants.
•
Black
in
participants
the
performed
non-diagnostic
as
well
as
white
participants
performed
worse
than
condition.
Participants
•
114
male
and
female,
black
and
white
However
,
black
participants
white
Stanford
participants
in
the
diagnostic
to
diagnosing
condition.
undergraduates.
Conclusion
Method
and
procedure
Linking
Black
college
students
and
white
college
students
were
the
test
performance
a
30-minute
verbal
test
that
was
difcult
enough
for
to
nd
it
the
test
the
were
experimental
told
genuine
test
Aronson
In
the
that
of
(stereotype-threat)
test
your
verbal
intellectual
abilities
and
participants
ability:
limitations”
“a
of
condition
the
Essential
People
behaviour
participants
research
had
were
nothing
Rosenthal
of
hold
the
is
students
presented
(Steele,
to
and
told
do
that
with
possibly
a
depresses
through
the
stereotype
as
less
reective
of
threat.
ability
,
their
researchers
increased
possibility
,
test
improves
and
suggest
apprehension
to
the
negative
participants
matches
of
that
black
group
become
that
black
this
of
may
students
stereotype.
anxious,
be
over
Faced
which
performance.
intellectual
Jacobson
(1968)—self-fullling
prophecy
Results
stereotype
stereotyped
by
The
conforming
this
affects
the
performance
participants.
explained
understanding
who
white
with
RESEARCH
✪
diagnosed
condition
1995).
control
purpose
the
black
challenging.
participants’
In
of
most
When
participants
ability
given
may
inuence
the
•
group.
In
the
year
gained
on
of
the
experiment,
average
experimental
8.4
group
IQ
control-group
points,
gained
12.2
while
IQ
students
students
from
the
points.
Aim
•
T
o
investigate
whether
students
of
whom
greater
This
expectancy
students:
growth
is
expected
will
actually
show
greater
in
a
period
of
one
year
or
for
example,
in
was
grade
most
obvious
in
1
average
gain
the
young
was
intellectual
12
growth
advantage
intellectual
IQ
points
versus
27.4
IQ
points
in
the
control
and
the
less.
experimental
•
The
groups
advantage
of
respectively
.
favourable
expectations
was
more
Participants
visible
320
students
(255
in
the
from
control
the
same
group,
public
65
in
school,
the
grades
experimental
1
to
in
reasoning
IQ
as
compared
to
verbal
IQ.
6
group).
Conclusion
Changes
Procedure
T
eachers
in
expected
their
IQ
to
3.2.1
be
test.
designated
3.2
the
In
as
school
were
“growth
reality
“spurters”
test
SNOITINIFED
Cultural
certain
based
on
ctitious
chosen
at
students
the
and
its
were
results
of
students’
people
in
teachers’
may
self-fullling
students
affect
Unit
their
produce
Stereotypes
behaviour
we
changes
have
through
about
the
in
other
process
of
prophecy
.
of
behaviour
inuence
on
and
cognition
behaviour
cognition
specic
to
unique
a
set
particular
of
attitudes,
beliefs
and
culture
Culture—a
“unique
shared
group
by
a
Matsumoto
64
expectations
achievement.
random.
origins
and
norms—the
behaviours
was
were
Cultural
and
that
spurters”,
the
Culture
told
3—Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
meaning
and
(2007)
and
transmitted
information
across
system,
generations”
ESSENTIAL
The
three
UNDERSTANDING
aspects
to
are:
of
culture
inuence
of
culture
on
behaviour
•
3.2.2
Cultural
•
the
inuence
of
culture
on
cognition.
•
3.3.2
Acculturation
•
3.4.
The
origin
related
of
This
may
context
be
explained
inuences
evolutionarily:
culture
and
The
cultural
•
norms.
•
covered
The
concepts
learning,
are
cultural
transmission,
enculturation,
socialization,
acculturation
•
and
•
inuence
There
are
In
bilingual
cultural
to
the
the
be
to
context
of
environment,
addressed,
Related
can
how
inuence
the
and
AND
concepts
(2007),
to
culture
physical
the
tools
in
socialization,
acculturation
and
Cultural
norms
and
a
and
of
one
incorporated
is
the
social
a
needs
Based
Specic
solution
problems
is
this
unit
are
that
is
the
process
generation
to
by
by
is
of
on
this,
the
•
enculturation,
part
process
immersion
of
claried
of
passing
cultural
as
the
in
cultural
your
the
a
origin
difference
universal
“process
specic
can
of
which
social
your
own
a
terms
(Mead
culture.
like
is
norms
same
like
is
socialization
while
culture
1963).
In
a
inuences
desire
to
conform
to
is
cognitive
as
to
evolution:
the
culture
demands
of
is
their
contexts
the
to
engender
appropriate
a
unique
set
particular
certain
cultural
of
norms.
attitudes,
beliefs
and
culture.
is
the
increasing
and
process
“acculturation
to
of
interconnectedness
increasing
cross-cultural
can
a
be
global
viewed
as
the
culture”.
inuence
inuence
of
of
culture
culture
on
on
behaviour
behaviour
For
example,
is
covered
in
other
see:
cultural
dimensions
behaviours
such
of
behaviour
as
conformity
and
their
and
inuence
cooperation
Cultural
(see
as
dimensions”)
is
it
takes
acculturation
(see
and
its
“3.3.2
inuence
on
attitudes,
values
and
Acculturation”)
place
globalization
and
behaviour
cooperation.
as
its
inuence
on
(see
identity
“3.4
The
and
such
inuence
of
“enculturation”
on
individual
behaviour”)
cultural
socialization/
They
are
two
inuence
of
culture
on
cognition
sides
a
mechanism
other
people
of
enculturation
perform
actions
There
are
cultural
differences
in
of
these
actions
(see
is
style).
the
See
way
Chiu
people
process
(1972).
that
In
bilingual
individuals
triggers
a
the
language
change
in
that
they
are
decision-making
processes.
“3.1.2
Briley,
Morris
and
Simonson
(2005).
theory”).
acquiring
the
cultural
norms
of
This
can
(for
example,
when
a
person
be
explained
by
a
motivation
to
conform
to
the
a
norms
culture
(cognitive
as
•
moves
of
potential
observers.
In
other
words,
motivation
to
to
different
people
enculturation
and
and
“learning”.
consequences
Acculturation
a
culture
process.
observing
different
processes.
Sometimes,
sense,
“teaching”,
like
learning
the
explained
of
this
See
Social
are
(2005)
conscious
Psychologically
speaking
•
they
is,
•
as
be
cultures
information
well
that
decision-making
which
process
are
•
involves
in
inuence.
The
enculturation
Social
language
people
(1972)
Margaret
this:
“socialization”
interchangeably
.
transmission
•
way
Chiu
culture
norms—that
process”
learning
culture”
the
are
globalization
the
the
See
another
.
•
of
behaviour
cognition
in
Simonson
through
regarding
all
identity
used
and
group
specic
among
•
however,
a
norms
”3.2.2
are
the
individual’
s
Globalization
on
“learning
of
behaviours
•
acquisition
becoming
a
individual
individuals.
and
the
style).
change
environmental
Cultural
must
cultural
learning,
the
Enculturation
in
on
norms.
expectations
in
topics.
is
an
culture
response
globalization.
Socialization
Mead
a
Morris
is
on
differences
individuals
mechanism
The
•
globalization
culture
triggers
The
The
•
as:
CONCEPTS
social
transmission
from
given
available”.
RELATED
covered
“Culture
survive,
transmission,
•
behaviour
environment.
Matsumoto
problem
CULTURE
of
(cognitive
Briley,
origin
understanding
norms.
According
on
such
CULTURE
Environmental
✪
of
See
cultural
Essential
topics
dimensions
cultural
cognition
OF
other
inuence
speaking
globalization.
ORIGIN
in
information
Related
social
is
ideas
culture
environmental
concepts
inuence
the
•
related
The
•
and
and
topic
dening
Culture
culture
this
•
conform
to
cultural
norms
is
the
mechanism
through
country).
which
culture
inuences
Sociocultural
cognition.
approach
to
behaviour
65
RESEARCH
Essential
There
✪
information
US
is
cultural
cultural
styles
in
Chinese
•
differences
(cognitive
more
students
explained
(1972)—cognitive
understanding
are
students
Chiu
is
by
style).
holistic
more
the
The
and
in
the
way
cognitive
contextual,
analytic
and
differences
in
children
style
of
whereas
categorical.
socialization
This
US
US
students
categorical
process
were
Chinese
of
may
be
•
On
the
much
and
T
o
carry
out
Chinese
a
and
cross-cultural
US
comparison
of
cognitive
styles
in
students.
221
Chinese
US
students
districts
terms
of
of
in
grades
students
of
Indiana,
the
the
4
came
same
5
from
grades
comparable
socio-economic
and
to
from
rural
of
three
objects
one
cognitive-style
pictures
“grass”).
“grass”
grass
The
that
a
higher
cow
“because
Chinese
prevalence
and
they
as
the
would
be
the
pictures
three
together
students
of
commonality
.
and
sampled
the
families;
from
Chinese
rural
sample
(for
task
were
was
in
focus
basis
example,
was
to
alike
“cow”,
select
and
used.
any
went
Each
item
“chicken”
two
out
together
,
of
consisted
and
the
leaving
They
a
are
in
the
chicken
both
animals”
left
demonstrated
contextual
together
When
given
objects,
because
on
of
Chiu
three
the
on
the
would
eats
for
basis
“cow”,
they
cow
a
style,
of
“chicken”
group
grass,
cow
and
the
out.
and
out.
•
of
in
the
rather
objects
while
stimulus
abstract
that
cognitive
processes.
and
Chinese
the
holistically
categorize
US
and
on
than
the
basis
students
of
prefer
categorize
on
to
the
groups.
evaluation
suggested
socialization
stimuli
to
relationships,
membership
evidence
third
or
components
socialization
the
process
prefer
interdependence
status.
test
students
analytically
.
Notes
28-item
together
classifying
and
Chinese
middle-class
Method
A
signicantly
example
Conclusion
students
communities—all
316
for
unpaired).
contrary
,
chicken
Participants
scored
style,
higher
contextual
Aim
also
grass
example,
values.
students
grouped
(leaving
that
practices
and
reported
relevant
parents
family
(as
He
the
in
styles
carried
are
out
following
the
context
emphasize
opposed
to
a
products
cultural
of
this
mutual
US
end
review
of
differences
in
research.
dependence
parents
of
published
who
in
emphasize
Results
independence).
•
US
students
scored
signicantly
higher
than
Chinese
•
students
in
analytic
style:
they
grouped
objects
Chinese
under
often
on
the
basis
of
separate
components,
for
human
gures
together
because
their
“they
holding
a
Briley,
their
Morris
and
Simonson
Chinese
students
shifts
works.
in
bicultural
individuals
inuence
decision-making.
A
the
in
attempt
an
than
investigate
the
effect
of
language
versus
new
English)
in
are
bicultural
individuals
example
courses
Cantonese
taught
are
from
are
both
at
a
taught
ofcial
major
in
Hong
English.
languages
early
childhood.
both
languages
Kong
English
in
Hong
in
this
Students
university
By
the
uent
in
both
deferring
to
potential
avoid
in
line
with
individuals
choice,
to
buy
disappointment.
traditional
them
Such
Chinese
values
of
the
was
decision-making
choosing
between
scenario
two
given
to
restaurants.
the
Each
and
have
had
two
favourable
and
two
unfavourable
expected
features
unique
features
participants
to
(the
same
Kong,
substantial
unfavourable
unique
focus
to
on
the
the
features.
options,
potential
A
Option
B
exposure
wait
Good
independent
decision-making
(45
min)
Good
variety
of
foods
on
measures
design;
IV
was
variety
of
foods
on
menu
Staff
is
not
particularly
strategies.
High
quality
Service
1
(61
participants)
are
purchase
of
Unit
relevant
a
new
in
involved
situations
television
to
3—Sociocultural
choice
deferral.
such
considering
replace
as
the
approach
old
to
friendly
menu
language,
is
of
very
food
(4
stars)
slow
View
is
not
very
High
quality
of
Procedure
decisions
of
for
population
the
66
choosing
of
cultures.
Experiment,
Study
while
none
losses.
Method
was
a
decide
the
DV
and
values.
the
researchers
and
Long
to
is
bilingual
will
restaurants)
making
Option
are
who
in
options,
restaurants
both
undergraduates
all
situation-oriented
processes.
Participants
where
more
on
the
Chinese
are
environment.
more
western
participants
decision-making
(“living
manipulation
An
(Cantonese
the
person
from
decisions
Aim
T
o
to
(2005)—decision-making
understanding
Language-induced
✪
tradition-oriented
shadows”).
gun”.
RESEARCH
Essential
more
are
sensitive
both
are
ancestors’
example,
•
classifying
students
more
one
Such
the
that
still
behaviour
T
able
3.4
Source:
Briley,
Morris
and
Simonson
(2005:
356)
attractive
food
(4
stars)
In
B
each
or
scenario
neither
.
“choice
Study
If
participants
they
chose
could
neither
choose
it
was
option
referred
A,
to
option
as
them
deferral”.
2
(90
Participants
in
participants)
involved
compromise
the
were
randomly
experiment
was
split
into
two
conducted
in
groups.
English,
In
in
one
the
of
other
Chinese.
choices
Results
It
included
shopping
scenarios
with
two
extreme
options
•
and
of
one
the
three
compromise
scenarios
cameras:
alter native.
participants
the
cameras
had
For
to
were
example,
choose
in
one
characterized
deferral
was
more
communication
Choice
was
Chinese
condition
neither
by
options
and
low
A
and
values
C
had
high
on
the
other
values
on
in
B
had
option
B
moderate
was
the
values
along
compromise
both
chose
the
English
Participants
dimensions
more
who
likely
rating
the
two
options,
this
compared
language
to
condition).
were
to
in
the
select
Chinese
language
compromise
options:
condition
in
(that
in
expert
of
camera
scenario
77%
of
participants
chose
the
choice).
compromise
Reliability
of
in
while
the
is,
language
participants
one
dimension,
were
option
the
of
two
•
dimension
when
(44%
of
29%
dimensions;
likely
one
of
Maximum
panel
Chinese
option
and
when
only
53%
the
experiment
chose
the
was
conducted
compromise
option
autofocus
when
range
it
was
conducted
in
English.
T
ypical
40–70
12–28
45
25
mm
Conclusion
range
Culture
Option
A
affects
language;
Option
B
55
20
T
able
C
65
15
even
the
same
processes
bilingual
through
individuals
may
prefer
mm
to
Option
decision-making
mm
mm
make
they
are
different
decisions
depending
on
which
language
speaking.
3.5
Source:
Briley,
Morris
and
RESEARCH
Essential
Briley,
Language-induced
be
explained
by
a
of
Morris
the
shifts
356)
and
Simonson
(2005)—follow-up
use
bilingual
to
language
audience
that
studies
Results
in
motivation
(individuals
identity
(2005:
understanding
✪
norms
Simonson
is
individuals
conform
as
an
likely
to
Further
obser vers’
indicator
to
can
obser ve
of
research
support
the
to
the
manipulation
their
were
behaviour).
given
increase
about
a
by
Briley
,
second
effects
tended
demanding
cognitive
impression
Morris
and
explanation.
load
to
hence
task
give
lends
example,
disappear
cognitive
and
Simonson
For
when
(with
them
participants
the
no
more
language
aim
time
to
to
think
management).
Aim
The
authors
results
•
of
Spoken
The
to
or
two
potential
explanations
of
the
in
Conclusion
The
automatically
triggers
certain
cultural
cognitions.
changes
impression
test
study
.
language
schemas
•
wanted
their
decision-making
management.
researchers
their
would
are
the
result
of
might
observe
have
English
to
argue
decision-making
or
been
to
culture
their
language
used
Chinese.
conform
which
them;
that
processes
as
So,
cultural
a
clue
bilingual
to
that
norms
may
participants
potential
spoken
impression
inuences
the
during
the
the
audience
management
be
the
adjusted
audience
that
experiment
would
and
the
mechanism
be
desire
through
cognition.
Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
67
3.2.2
Cultural
SNOITINIFED
Cultural
cultural
been
dimensions
dimensions—general
differences
identied
on
in
values
the
basis
factors
and
of
underlying
behaviour;
massive
they
cross-
culture
have
other
without
cultures
“imposed
is
etic”,
but
comparison
with
difcult
cross-national
Etic
approach—studying
cultures
from
an
outside
surveys
Emic
approach—examining
within;
enables
ESSENTIAL
Each
culture
scale
is
not
in-depth
specic
culture
understanding
of
from
the
unique
enables
requires
identication
will
the
serve
as
is
unique,
easy
that
phenomena
Geert
Hofstede
so
task.
are
These
to
compare
One
present
will
then
needs
in
them
to
every
become
on
a
identify
individual
criteria
large
•
comparison
conformity
.
culture.
for
•
(1973)
conducted
an
extensive
See
Berry
participants
See
Finkelstein
identied
Power
from
more
than
70
distance
5
such
See
universal
Hofstede
phenomena,
(1973)
and
may
and
that
inuence
Katz
may
rates
of
(1967)
inuence
volunteering.
(2010)
inuences
or
and
See
patterns
of
Meeuwesen,
Hofstede
patient–doctor
van
den
Brink-
(2009)
cultural
Power
distance
inuences
people’
s
reactions
to
“Hofstede’s
empowerment
in
the
workplace.
See
Eylon
and
dimensions”.
Au
Cultural
but
phenomena
countries
•
cultural
universal
study
Muinen
dimensions.
comparisons,
criteria
Individualism–collectivism
comparison.
communication.
and
of
Individualism–collectivism
universal
•
involving
cross-cultural
UNDERSTANDING
an
phenomena
an
a
perspective;
dimensions
have
a
wide
range
of
inuences
(1999)
on
behaviour
.
RESEARCH
Hofstede
(1973)—the
multinational
Aim
T
o
identify
values,
dimensions
attitudes
and
underlying
cultural
differences
in
survey
In
order
to
to
other
populations,
conrm
conducted
behaviour
.
between
commercial
Participants
Around
117,000
IBM
employees
research
department
of
(Hofstede
IBM
founded
the
personnel
original
airline
this
dimensions
time
a
1990
pilots,
of
and
scores
2002.
were
were
and
to
follow-up
students
countries
(value
ndings
series
The
and
also
generalize
studies
samples
civil
service
proled
established
for
them
were
included
managers.
against
each
the
value
country).
Europe).
Results
Method
A
and
worldwide
and
1973.
identify
survey
Results
hidden
responses
procedure
(a
of
of
the
was
survey
dimensions
statistical
Originally
values
conducted
were
statistically
underlying
technique
between
observed
known
as
1967
analysed
patterns
factor
to
of
analysis).
versus
Hofstede
collectivism,
identied
masculinity
versus
femininity
.
theory
added
two
and
short-term
four
uncertainty
more
orientation
and
dimensions:
avoidance,
Later
research
dimensions:
indulgence
individualism
power
distance,
rened
the
long-term
versus
versus
self-restraint.
THEORY
HOFSTEDE’S
CUL
TURAL
Individualism
versus
cultures
own
people
personal
features.
the
with
is
linked
to
belonging
In
personality
their
strongest
competitiveness
identity
associated
collectivism.
their
characteristics,
Among
autonomy
,
cultures
dene
DIMENSIONS
the
to
a
Uncertainty
which
terms
success
values
and
individualist
in
in
and
group
group,
take
their
their
society
self-sufciency
.
social
of
are
In
and
unique
on
personal
of
collectivist
values
priority
this
index
events
rank
low
embrace
that
distance
hierarchy
powerful
is
index
between
rmly
questioned.
question
A
(PDI).
the
PDI
and
A
less
established
lower
authority
on
new
superior
Masculinity
to
versus
achievement,
avoid
are
situations
or
more
more
to
the
Cultures
risk-taking
unexpected
index
refers
and
are
unknown.
tolerant
of
extent
that
rank
to
high
intolerant
Cultures
that
uncertainty
and
easily
.
in
score
believe
higher
PDI
powerful
the
society
indicates
that
score
and
the
and
that
versus
on
femininity.
caring,
this
indicates
conservative,
more
value
rarely
short-term
gures
the
are
a
future
dimension
they
traditions
indicates
people
authority
low
orientation.
culture
and
rely
on
highly
.
A
that
future
is
(short-term
Cultures
the
past
high
for
score
pragmatic
orientation)
that
guidance
(long-term
and
and
are
they
orientation)
oriented
towards
challenges.
not
versus
restraint.
Societies
that
promote
themselves.
autonomy
include
Unit
to
This
ambiguity
.
over
indulgence
68
are
this
Indulgence
particularly
values
tend
index.
tolerate
values.
score
Power
can
that
Long-term
personal
avoidance
people
and
Masculine
values
competitiveness;
cooperation,
3—Sociocultural
modesty
approach
feminine
and
to
include
compassion.
behaviour
human
desires,
Societies
needs
allow
that
with
a
free
such
as
promote
strict
social
gratication
having
a
restraint
norms.
of
basic
holiday
regulate
or
and
just
natural
having
gratication
fun.
of
RESEARCH
Berry
and
Katz
collectivism
Essential
✪
on
(1967)—the
inuence
other
understanding
Collectivism
is
associated
of
with
individualism
higher
conformity
to
group
lines
which
They
norms.
below.
line
investigate
versus
whether
collectivism
cultural
affect
differences
in
individualism
the
other
are
also
tricked
as
equal
conformity
.
Participants
of
participants
Aim
T
o
and
conformity
the
to
(T
emne
correct
the
procedure
into
or
the
of
then
that
to
this
measure
the
“majority”
of
pick
identify
of
pick
line
a
is
target
the
an
will
line.
other
particular
actually
conformity
participant
and
to
the
most
respectively)
however
,
not
asked
length
believing
The
or
are
equal
Inuits,
line.
whether
of
is
answer;
target
is
suggestion
lines
in
accept
incorrect
not
this
the
response
Participants
because
This
study
looked
Sierra
Leone
and
Inuits
live
a
as
promotes
on
food
the
society
rice
a
group
daily
whose
the
the
Inuit
hunting
way
who
next
and
are
one
they
are
crop
rely
on
T
emne
Northern
people
Canada.
This
responsible
way
for
of
The
life
little
food-accumulating
accumulation
a
year.
sharing
In
They
order
food
to
•
The
T
emne
of
by
this
paradigm:
length,
participants
with
one
are
target
shown
line
on
a
top
series
of
Finkelstein
a
the
of
Asch
lines
page
and
of
have
chosen
it.
a
signicant
the
group
tendency
and
select
to
the
accept
the
incorrect
from
the
suggestion
Inuit
of
the
group
were
mostly
unaffected
“majority”.
Conclusion
researchers
because
using
members
survive
among
Procedure
conformity
of
Participants
are
The
measured
group
response.
•
members.
researchers
had
suggestion
participants
The
other
Results
their
a
collectivism.
most
of
is
promotes
harvest
harvest
the
society.
there
T
emne
life
of
shing
People
The
of
from
people
and
basis,
society.
farmers
until
individuals
individualism.
survival
in
at
value
varying
in
concluded
conform
conformity
the
T
emne
less
to
that
often
group
society
,
the
individualist
than
norms
which
the
is
Inuit
collectivist
ingrained
depend
on
T
enme
as
tight
a
cultural
social
relations.
several
(2010)—the
effect
of
individualism
and
collectivism
RESEARCH
on
Essential
✪
People
reasons
volunteer
behaviour
understanding
in
individualist
from
people
in
Results
societies
collectivist
volunteer
for
different
•
Collectivism
societies.
to
altruistic
social
was
more
motivation
strongly
related
and
desire
the
than
to
individualism
strengthen
ties.
Aim
•
T
o
examine
the
effect
of
culture
on
volunteer
Collectivism,
but
not
individualism,
correlated
with
behaviour
.
helping
•
On
the
in
order
other
to
sustain
hand,
role
identity
.
individualism
was
most
closely
Method
associated
Online
self-report
questionnaires
that
measured
a
variety
reasons
•
altruistic
•
the
•
role
for
volunteering
motivation
to
engaging
in
volunteering
for
career-
of
related
possible
with
reasons.
including:
help
Conclusion
desire
to
strengthen
social
ties
The
identity
(volunteering
for
the
sake
of
researchers
differ
with
one’
s
in
why
they
choose
that
to
individualists
volunteer
,
but
and
not
in
collectivists
the
self-image)
willingness
•
concluded
consistency
career-related
to
volunteer
itself.
reasons.
Participants
194
undergraduates
exchange
for
extra
at
a
US
course
RESEARCH
university
who
participated
in
credit.
Meeuwesen,
van
den
Brink-Muinen
and
Hofstede
(2009)—patient–doctor
communication
Essential
✪
understanding
Patient–doctor
power
distance
is
Method
communication
more
in
cultures
with
greater
one-sided.
and
Patient-doctor
and
analysed
observation).
procedure
communication
against
a
sessions
checklist
Additional
context
of
were
criteria
videotaped
(structured
information
was
gathered
Aim
by
T
o
investigate
how
communication
dimensions.
cross-national
can
be
differences
understood
from
in
using
questionnaires.
medical
Hofstede’
s
cultural
Participants
307
10
general
practitioners
European
countries
(GPs)
and
(Belgium,
Sociocultural
5,807
Estonia,
approach
patients
from
Germany
,
to
United
behaviour
69
Kingdom,
and
the
Netherlands,
Poland,
Romania,
Spain,
Sweden
A
nation’
s
shorter
was
more
patient
power
with
and
In
less
consultation
index
the
was
information
sessions.
with
(PDI)
In
exchange
Communication
doctor
speaking
countries
the
Essential
a
were
low
PDI
more
Eylon
score,
open
to
and
Au
doctors
shared
questions
and
more
generally
(1999)—power
perform
from
as
cultures
well
when
are
their
a
and,
at
a
communication
and
PDI
to
score,
clearly
between
closely
.
roles
described
style.
them
scale,
follows
intercultural
to
of
pursue
the
and
Understanding
prevent
larger
healthcare
high
more
more
important
distance
understanding
Individuals
with
doctor
protocol
is
with
nations
the
communication
and
listening.
RESEARCH
not
distance
unexpected
one-sided,
information,
✪
in
Sessions
also
longer
.
Conclusion
large
associated
•
exible
lasted
Results
•
more
Switzerland).
an
of
patient
xed,
and
and
established
these
differences
miscommunication
integration
of
European
policies.
empowerment
in
the
workplace
Results
with
high
PDI
empowered
as
scores
do
•
when
disempowered.
Regardless
of
were
satised
more
condition
their
and
less
cultural
with
background,
their
satised
in
job
the
in
participants
the
empowered
disempowered
condition.
Aim
•
T
o
investigate
the
relationship
between
power
distance
Individuals
not
empowerment
in
the
from
cultures
with
high
PDI
scores
did
and
perform
as
well
when
empowered
as
when
workplace.
disempowered.
•
Participants
from
cultures
with
low
PDI
scores
performed
Participants
similarly
135
MBA
students
from
a
Canadian
regardless
of
the
condition.
university
.
Conclusion
Procedure
Participants
were
power-distance
divided
groups
into
based
high
on
power-distance
their
language
and
and
High
power-distance
react
differently
origin.
They
participated
in
a
management
different
point
of
the
simulation
all
terms
participants
in
situations
where
they
were
either
of
performance,
High
while
Cultural
inuences
identity
and
3.3.1
groups
workplace
not
in
terms
groups
of
work
may
Being
perform
disempowered
context
means
having
more
structured
tasks
in
and
on
SNOITINIFED
and
individual
norms—the
behaviours
Cultural
unique
specic
to
a
set
of
attitudes,
particular
transmission—passing
beliefs
Enculturation—the
culture
the
cultural
necessary
behaviours
and
beliefs)
from
is
a
the
but
relationship
individuals
Cultural
individuals
norms
who
grow
individuals’
norms.
This
shared
knowledge
one
resembles
the
make
out
of
between
up
the
behaviour
is
relationship
cultural
particular
enculturation
mechanism
behaviour
shaped
by
between
However
,
active
mechanism
of
passive
cultural
personal
way
.
of
the
in
of
part
study
enculturation
of
that
enculturation
See
et
al
learning
Odden
is
cultural
level.
the
child
takes
the
are
two
sides
of
the
might
In
learning
and
Rochat
not
be
some
seems
a
universal
non-western
to
be
the
societies
predominant
(2004).
inuences
See
cognition
demonstrated
how
(using
the
example
of
of
learning.
active
learning
musical
approach
et
al
(cognitive
schemas)
on
(2008).
to
interacts
with
acculturation
to
inuence
A
(and
such
related
behaviours
as
self-esteem
and
leads
attitude
toward
enculturation)
(2012).
3—Sociocultural
Demorest
transmission,
form
Omizo
Unit
of
(“teaching”)
TOK.
the
Trainor
learn
context
and
identity
research
transmission
(“learning”)
enculturation.
observational
Enculturation
on
the
process
cultural
deep
which
cultural
people
in
generation
Enculturation
The
is,
which
norms
UNDERSTANDING
bidirectional
and
groups.
by
next
ESSENTIAL
norms
process
appropriate
culture—that
same
the
and
norms
and
(attitudes,
There
attitudes,
behaviours
their
to
responsibilities.
Enculturation
Cultural
70
the
disempowered.
3.3
is
but
power-distance
disempowered.
well-dened
to
in
empowered
this
or
power-distance
found
better
themselves
low
empowerment
simulation.
satisfaction).
At
to
country
(in
of
and
low
behaviour
(2006).
one’
s
social
group).
See
Kim
and
a
RESEARCH
Essential
Trainor
al
(2012)—active
learning
is
the
result
as
of
active
at
learning.
the
once
T
rainor
et
al
(2012)
studied
the
the
phenomenon
of
toy,
the
enculturation
music
to
from
music
Music
one’
s
would
considered
is
an
necessarily
culture.
be
how
pleasant
in
integral
entails
One
the
one
part
of
any
becoming
example
same
of
voice
culture
and
culture,
sensitive
cultural
timbre
active
idea
that
musical
enculturation
looked
occurs
looks
more
the
DV
2
social
another
.
was
other
child
and
once
playing.
at
away.
the
It
toy
likes
the
was
the
The
infant
music
assumed
looked
stopped
while
the
that
music
is
the
playing,
music.
through
the
so
would
by
it
is
a
was
show
passive
measured
development
people
interaction,
in
the
child
the
with
be
Aim
test
infant
toy,
started
enculturation
and
sensitivity
in
a
classes
T
o
interesting
music
musical
to
may
aversive
an
the
of
musical
longer
enculturation.
mechanism
illuminating
understanding
Enculturation
✪
et
that
social
Social
the
infants.
activity
predicted
more
classes.
a
of
cultural
infants
in
given
to
of
their
music
interpersonal
the
development
development
questionnaire
Making
involving
active
than
the
infants
infants
was
parents.
learning.
Results
Method
38
and
western
assigned
•
•
to
procedure
infants
who
one
two
of
months
of
active
six
months
of
a
while
6
months
old
were
randomly
conditions:
six
passively
•
were
participatory
class
in
playing
which
with
music
they
class
Children
experienced
music
•
children
the
the
The
1
was
sensitivity
to
western
tonality.
It
was
examining
infants’
preferences
to
two
class
tonal
passive
questionnaire
group
version
group
demonstrated
of
did
the
not
sonatina,
prefer
a
while
one
version
by
distress
the
to
showed
age
of
that
12
limitations,
infants
months
less
in
the
showed
distress
active
signicantly
when
confronted
measured
with
by
in
active
the
other
.
condition
less
DV
the
to
to
toys.
in
preference
versions
of
novel
stimuli,
more
smiling
and
laughter
,
and
easier
a
soothability
.
sonatina
version
by
Thomas
and
the
Atwood
atonal
(1765–1838):
version.
The
tonal
the
tonal
version
was
the
Conclusion
original
while
added.
Infant
the
atonal
version
had
additional
accidentals
Active
preferences
were
measured
in
a
music
parents
turn
preference
procedure
in
which
a
light
was
Odden
and
Rochat
enculturation
Essential
✪
mechanism
of
learning
sensitivity
(2004)—observational
in
some
a
social
context
involving
enculturation
a
universal
to
cultural
tonality
learning
of
infants
infants,
and
including
as
the
and
social
mechanism
development.
of
Participants
might
not
be
28
enculturation.
children
village
in
Aim
aged
Samoa.
stratied.
T
o
in
musical
cultures
understanding
Participatory
promotes
ashed,
their
RESEARCH
making
head-
This
4–12
and
Samoan
their
parents
society
stratication
is
from
a
hierarchical
inuences
rural
and
practically
all
socially
social
practices.
investigate
mechanism
cultural
the
of
role
of
children’
s
observational
enculturation
learning
in
as
a
non-western
Results
contexts.
•
Observations
and
Samoan
attitudes
As
was
interviews
towards
showed
high
education
and
specicity
of
enculturation.
Background
•
Participatory
of
a
child’
s
idea
in
is
the
learning
active
legacy
developmental
is
learning
involvement
of
Lev
in
that
a
learning
Vygotsky’
s
psychology
.
See
occurs
as
there
a
high
distance
to
authority
(power
result
activity
.
inuential
“7.1.2
a
distance),
questioning
viewed
as
a
largely
left
not
to
in
class
was
discouraged
as
it
was
This
sign
of
disrespect
to
the
adult.
Children
were
views
to
learn
things
on
their
own,
and
adults
did
Cognitive
try
engage
them
or
motivate
them.
Caretakers
development”.
believed
•
Observational
learning
is
learning
that
occurs
child
observes
everyday
activities
without
in
them.
This
idea
is
the
legacy
of
Bandura’
s
research.
in
See
theories
“3.1.2
of
Social
cognitive
enculturation,
Samoan
was
hot
houses
and
believed
learning
to
be
was
the
leading
but
never
the
core
process
of
to
are
humid
often
built
climate),
without
and
walls
activities
of
(due
to
nearby
freely
may
be
observe
easy
the
to
observe.
activities
of
Children
others
and
since
adults
the
mechanism;
acknowledged
as
a
cultural
of
privacy
is
not
established
in
the
society
and
starting
can
point,
listening
theory”.
concept
observational
and
participatory
can
learning
observing
elders.
households
T
raditionally
via
Albert
the
•
learn
directly
•
participating
children
when
their
the
that
even
be
viewed
as
a
form
of
secrecy
or
immorality
.
learning.
•
By
age
time
15,
doing
adolescents
chores
spend
(such
as
a
signicant
washing
amount
clothes,
of
feeding
Method
domesticated
Longitudinal
contexts
of
caretakers,
naturalistic
village
life;
teachers,
observation
of
semi-structured
pastors
and
children
in
interviews
chiefs;
parental
parents
were
One
of
the
researchers
lived
in
child
explicitly
child
seen
care,
cooking).
explaining
the
However
,
chore
or
teaching
the
child
in
any
to
the
age
other
the
way
.
belief
the
village
same
was
true
for
shing.
By
of
12,
children
for
were
20
never
with
The
questionnaires.
animals,
key
quite
skilled
shermen,
but
never
in
their
lives
had
months.
Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
71
they
been
who
would
shing
shing
was
under
the
correct
their
used,
boy
a
supervision
mistakes.
would
For
of
an
adult
example,
accompany
his
if
observational
spear
father
,
learning
plays
a
central
role
in
children’
s
enculturation.
but
Notes
there
would
only
be
one
spear
available
and
the
child
These
would
never
use
it.
Then
after
a
certain
age
results
are
multicultural
would
simply
shing
•
by
the
shing
equipment
and
of
and
for
educators,
situation.
especially
Children
who
in
grow
a
up
start
in
an
as
a
mechanism
environment
the
intricate
cultural
societal
concepts
hierarchy
,
ritual
as
and
such
power
in
a
western
instruction,
authority
classroom
that
emphasizes
observational
learning
themselves.
Knowledge
practice
borrow
important
children
was
also
acquired
in
the
same
of
enculturation
classroom
which
scaffolding
and
is
may
be
typically
active
at
a
disadvantage
focused
on
direct
participation.
way
.
Conclusion
Each
culture
mechanisms
may
of
emphasize
RESEARCH
Essential
a
deep
different
In
the
Demorest
et
blend
Samoan
al
of
context
(2008)—the
inuence
understanding
Enculturation
✪
a
enculturation.
inuences
of
enculturation
on
musical
memory
Results
cognition
(cognitive
schemas)
on
•
level.
•
Participants
were
signicantly
novel
from
their
music
Musical
expertise
did
native
not
better
at
remembering
culture.
correlate
with
this
result.
Participants
150
trained
and
untrained
participants
from
the
USA
Conclusion
and
Enculturation
T
urkey
.
(cognitive
inuences
schemas
for
musical
musical
memory
on
a
deep
level
information).
Procedure
Note
Participants
listened
to
several
novel
musical
excerpts
from
In
both
familiar
and
unfamiliar
cultures
(western,
T
urkish
the
this
Chinese)
and
then
completed
a
recognition
memory
Essential
Kim
Omizo
interacts
study
enculturation
(2006)—enculturation,
understanding
Enculturation
✪
and
sense,
research
cognition
may
be
also
used
counts
to
as
“behaviour”,
demonstrate
the
so
effects
task.
of
RESEARCH
broad
and
on
behaviour
.
acculturation
and
identity
Participants
with
acculturation
to
inuence
156
Asian
American
college
students
aged
18–24.
identity
.
Results
In
the
context
of
adapting
of
their
research,
acculturation
is
the
process
•
to
the
dominant
group
(European
Acculturation
signicantly
.
while
enculturation
is
the
process
of
retaining
the
norms
indigenous
group
(Asian
This
enculturation
lends
support
scores
to
did
Berry
et
not
al’
s
correlate
(1997)
of
model
the
and
American),
where
acculturation
and
enculturation
are
presented
American).
as
two
these
independent
two
dimensions
dimensions
results
and
in
the
four
combination
distinct
of
acculturation
Aim
practices
T
o
examine
the
relationship
between
Asian
American
•
students’
enculturation
and
acculturation
in
relation
(see
to
Both
enculturation
of
•
Method
study
.
psychometrically
was
All
European
variables
validated
operationalized
behaviours;
to
as
measured
questionnaires.
engaging
acculturation
American
were
was
cultural
in
Asian
the
Enculturation
operationalized
as
behaviours.
in
•
is
Unit
3—Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
was
towards
belief
group
cultural
engaging
members
Enculturation
feelings
through
American
worthy
perception
that
an
being
exibility
the
and
group
their
Asian
a
important
was
of
associated
the
Acculturation
American
72
acculturation
participants’
were
that
related
they
are
good
identity
.
and
Correlational
Acculturation”).
and
the
positively
development
“3.3.2
college
cultural
with
aspect
associated
belief
that
positively
.
increased
American
member
of
of
social
the
one’
s
with
group.
positive
group
Asian
self-concept.
self-efcacy
,
others
and
American
view
the
cognitive
Asian
Self-perception
worthy
one’s
as
member
cultural
a
of
group
Positive
the
Acculturation
Cognitive
flexibility
belief
view
Asian
group
Figure
3.2
that
Results
independent
acculturation,
processes,
development
of
may
group
being
this
a
group
part
of
self-concept
American
positively
of
Kim
being
both
that
of
important
one’s
and
Omizo
(2006)
to
and
an
others
Conclusion
Enculturation
belief
member
is
The
towards
American
Enculturation
The
Self-efficacy
feelings
Asian
two
contribute
a
specic
Results
relatively
positively
to
the
can
be
results
identity
.
are
population
of
correlational,
inferred
from
depends
on
the
the
questionnaires
used
to
dened
process
Asian
so
no
American
college
cause–effect
data.
Finally
,
psychometric
measure
the
the
students.
relationship
credibility
properties
of
of
the
variables.
Notes
This
study
with
has
college
3.3.2
all
typical
students.
limitations
of
Generalizability
a
self-report
of
ndings
study
is
limited
Acculturation
Acculturation—internalizing
culture
where
you
have
the
norms
of
the
dominant
migrated
as
SNOITINIFED
It
Enculturation—internalizing
the
norms
of
your
a
as
result
can
the
of
result
contact
of
in
psychological
changes
interaction
to
both
and
cultural
between
cultures,
not
change
cultures.
only
the
own
non-dominant
culture
of
and
one
(Berry
2008).
Specic
research
studies
origin
usually
use
the
individuals
simplied
change
as
a
approach
result
of
and
focus
migration.
on
how
Enculturation
Notes
in
Recognizing
that
the
cultural
inuences
in
dominant
this
groups
are
mutual,
acculturation
is
Strategies
acculturation
of
can
is
a
cultural
adopt
four
combination
maintenance
•
change
strategies
of
cultural
change.
other
Acculturation
of
heritage
of
two
culture
independent
and
seeking
groups.
Limitations
limitations,
See
Berry
reliance
of
acculturation
acculturation
has
on
self-report
correlational
design
the
acculturation
eating
Shah
et
There
are
al
effects
a
number
of
norms
culture,
of
the
to
unhealthy
into
a
culture
eating
that
because
promotes
than
their
own
culture.
less
See
(2015).
buffer
protective
against
factors
developing
that
Ishizawa
and
Length
of
residence
Jones
See
Costa,
obesity
in
can
serve
migrants.
as
See
(2016).
is
associated
with
growing
obesity
.
typical
design
is
biased
in
Da
Dias
and
Martins
(2017).
In
using
such
uni-dimensional
this
(from
poorer
countries
and
more
to
rich
and
Another
more
liberal
strategies
and
health
behaviour
of
the
has
effect
effects
of
identied
and
the
as
length
acculturation
two
interesting
negative
proposed
complexities
of
by
Berry
of
criticism
is
that
it
is
not
the
(1997).
process
that
seems
to
matter
,
but
the
of
culture
on
health
effects:
acculturation
one
is
acculturating.
There
were
other
to
studies
that
migrants
did
into
the
countries).
which
Acculturation
measures
ignores
traditionalist
acculturation
societies
research
one
•
migrant
move
behaviours
some
acculturation
that
direction
migrants
the
data
•
of
adopting
including:
•
Research
to
contributes
typically
residence,
fact
refers
(1997).
•
•
heritage
dimensions—
•
into
the
relationships
a
Research
with
Each
•
with
ties
UNDERSTANDING
healthy
strategy
the
culture.
migrants
Individuals
to
now
host
ESSENTIAL
refers
and
while
non-dominant
context
behaviour
the
effect.
healthy
of
not
show
being
signicant
overweight
“Criticism
on
a
of
and
research
correlation
the
into
duration
effects
between
of
of
the
risk
residence.
See
acculturation
health”.
Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
73
THEORY
BERRY
(1997)—TWO-DIMENSIONAL
According
strategies
•
to
of
Berry
(1997),
cultural
individuals
concerned
original
about
culture.
adopt
OF
ACCUL
TURATION
four
processes
change.
cultural
Assimilation—individuals
not
can
MODEL
the
They
are
loss
adjust
open
of
to
change
connection
their
can
is
act
together
accepted
in
to
beliefs
to
the
norms
of
the
dominant
Integration—individuals
and
beliefs,
with
•
other
but
at
the
preserve
same
time
it
considered
to
culture.
original
explore
value
afraid
a
losing
•
other
it
and,
as
their
result,
1
maintain
to
be
one’s
value
characteristics?
“YES”
relationships
original
actively
culture,
avoid
“NO”
are
contact
do
not
maintain
their
Is
it
2
considered
to
“YES”
be
INTEGRATION
of
culture,
but
neither
do
they
seek
contact
value
to
ASSIMILATION
maintain
with
relationships
other
of
identity
cultures.
Marginalization—individuals
original
if
values
ISSUE
with
goal
cultures.
Separation—individuals
of
their
common
ISSUE
their
and
•
a
society
.
attitudes
Is
and
pursue
the
and
with
behaviour
,
and
diversity
cultures.
larger
with
society?
SEPARATION/
MARGINALIZATION
SEGREGATION
“NO”
These
four
strategies
independent
and
seeking
In
way
,
a
can
be
dimensions:
two
as
maintenance
relationships
the
visualized
with
dimensions
enculturation
(maintaining
acculturation
(seeking
other
can
the
be
a
of
system
of
heritage
two
culture
groups.
thought
heritage
of
culture)
as
versus
Figure
relationships
with
the
Berry
culture).
This
idea
enculturation
TYPICAL
so
Ideally
,
both
it
is
is
a
process
important
studies
the
should
minority
acculturation
behaviours,
measures
far-reaching
acculturation
LIMITATIONS
Acculturation
time,
has
and
and
involves
the
the
lends
itself
implications
terms
of
limited
scope
for
range
to
a
a
of
changes
choice
of
RESEARCH
of
Since
of
in
is
of
does
•
self-report
data
•
has
The
in
this
healthy
migrated
affect
health
who
stayed
explanation
and
prefer
they
Essential
healthy
typically
eating
migration
Most
migration
liberal
•
is
Shah
to
in
be
the
that
select
due
behaviour
interesting
al
who
healthier
country
host
healthy
et
contributes
move
into
look
at
that
samples
must
be
occurs
from
poorer
countries
occurs
from
traditional
to
richer
societies
to
more
to
in
the
limited
opposite
availability
direction
of
is
very
rarely
studied
samples.
•
makes
The
negative
of
countries
are
One
be
healthier
(2015)—obesity
in
who
South
Asian
and
stayed
in
the
in
host
workers
time:
the
is
in
one
effect—the
more
migrant
food
biased
over
explanation
than
“developed”
immigrants.
acculturation
healthy
potential
environments
One
selective
research
diminishes
less
counterparts
their
origin.
effect
becoming
effects.
recently
than
acculturation
direction.
healthy
migrants
are
similar
to
their
country
of
origin.
that
the
origin
food
cultures
environments
in
the
tend
to
more
societies.
in
the
UAE
1,375
South
Participants
to
a
studies
limitation
societies.
Migration
but
understanding
Acculturation
migrants
to
two
effect—people
tendency
potential
RESEARCH
✪
a
research
another
inferences.
identied
migrant
have
counterparts
has
is
for
.
migrant
area
of
there
countries.
from
This
variables,
Most
and
migrants?
Research
•
acculturation
majority
accounted
beliefs
design.
the
migrants,
This
How
strategies
that
Since
self-report
correlational
Acculturation
(1997)
opposite
studies.
attitudes,
coverage
cause–effect
means
period
culture.
of
Naturally
,
wider
over
account
method
questionnaires
it
necessarily
longitudinal
dominant
(questionnaires).
in
occurs
into
wide
common
not
ACCULTURATION
conduct
take
a
OF
that
to
implications:
are
3.3
dominant
unhealthy
culture
that
eating
because
promotes
less
behaviours.
A
random
and
sample
of
Bangladesh)
male
migrant
half
of
lived
in
The
most
them
had
common
the
Asian
workers
UAE
occupations
for
were
(from
in
six
the
or
India,
UAE.
more
drivers,
Pakistan
Over
years.
labourers,
Aim
agricultural
T
o
74
study
Unit
the
association
between
3—Sociocultural
acculturation
approach
to
and
obesity
.
behaviour
workers
and
construction
workers.
There
was
also
a
comparison
culture
of
group
of
men
of
the
same
age
in
their
origin.
•
The
workers
index
in
(BMI)
longer
they
the
than
UAE
the
stayed
in
had
signicantly
comparison
the
UAE,
higher
body
•
A
group.
promotes
their
the
of
obesity
comparison
double
among
prevalence
migrant
strength
higher
their
BMI
of
was
group;
for
Pakistani
obesity
sample
was
higher
in
migrants
example,
it
participants.
and
also
being
higher
was
At
more
the
overweight
than
in
than
in
in
•
Y
ears
than
same
more
culture
of
visa
of
time,
live
it).
men.
in
of
It
study
were
unhealthy
eating
behaviour
,
origin.
screening
new
does
terms
of
(the
is
is
not
using
centre
in
the
take
as
is
more
crude
people’
s
Abu
used
assumption
a
random
randomly
often
country
,
it
is
representativeness
selected
residency
However
,
bias.
in
a
the
increases
acculturation
the
Emirati
it
Participants
health
Prevalence
the
to
because
became.
•
that
Evaluation
Migrant
mass
culture
compared
Results
•
a
into
mandatory
Dhabi.
they
to
sample.
the
that
indicator
the
are
of
longer
people
acculturated
susceptible
account
reaction
the
from
an
measure
sampling
of
individual
to
to
some
differences
acculturative
stress.
Conclusion
•
Acculturation
may
contribute
to
unhealthy
This
resulting
in
obesity
and
being
overweight.
be
explained
by
the
fact
that
Essential
✪
There
buffer
Ishizawa
migrants
and
are
moving
some
against
protective
developing
Jones
(2016)—obesity
causation
cannot
may
be
in
Asian
to
specic
South
to
migrant
Asian
women.
men
and
may
not
be
migrants
in
the
USA
Conclusion
factors
obesity
in
that
can
serve
as
a
migrants.
Retaining
some
protective
Aim
T
o
experiment,
into
understanding
are
true
inferred.
Results
applicable
RESEARCH
a
This
•
may
being
eating
be
behaviours,
not
ties
factor
with
the
against
original
developing
culture
obesity
may
in
serve
as
a
migrants.
Evaluation
compare
generation
obesity
Asian
moderating
rates
among
migrants
factors
of
in
the
second-
USA
developing
and
and
third-
identify
•
The
potential
is
obesity
.
a
study
took
strength
becoming
too
into
more
helpful
consideration
because
just
obese
from
the
protective
postulating
with
the
practical
that
course
of
viewpoint.
factors.
migrants
time
is
It
are
not
Knowing
what
Method
factors
Correlational
can
potentially
protect
them
is
practical
because
study
.
we
can
enhance
healthier
those
protective
factors
to
create
populations.
Participants
•
Asian
migrants
in
the
The
results
causation
but
Results
It
Second-
and
likelihood
people
third-generation
of
from
obesity
their
than
country
migrants
had
rst-generation
of
origin.
a
factors
was
need
•
which
living
•
living
in
a
in
a
that
✪
Length
there
formulated
protected
against
to
remember
observed,
for
that
in
terms
that
example,
it
protect
of
is
that
still
against
just
an
migrants
obesity),
inference.
their
original
with
the
language
were
less
likely
to
who
develop
retained
course
of
time.
The
conclusion
that
obesity
retaining
the
were
language
protects
from
developing
obesity
seems
developing
neighbourhood
household
Da
that
with
a
high
retained
Costa,
the
Dias
migrant
but
original
and
residence
is
there
could
it
these
two
be
is
not
other
certain.
factors
As
in
any
correlational
inuencing
the
study
,
association
of
density
variables.
language.
Martins
(2017)—obesity
understanding
of
are
factors
were:
RESEARCH
Essential
study
or
plausible,
obesity
,
the
(moderating
higher
migrants
However
,
we
original
moderating
of
USA.
in
migrants
in
Portugal
Results
associated
with
growing
obesity
.
Prevalence
native
of
excessive
Portuguese
than
weight
was
in
migrants,
new
higher
in
the
sample
but
the
length
of
Aims
of
T
o
compare
the
prevalence
of
being
overweight
residence
being
immigrants
and
natives
in
Portugal;
to
study
the
length
of
residence
and
being
positively
overweight
in
correlated
migrants
(those
with
who
the
prevalence
stayed
longer
of
had
correlation
a
between
was
between
overweight
tendency
to
be
more
overweight).
among
Conclusion
immigrants.
The
process
diet
or
of
acculturation
causes
gradual
changes
in
Method
Correlational
lifestyle;
these
changes
cause
migrants
to
become
study
.
more
similar
to
the
native
Portuguese
in
terms
of
eating
behaviours.
Participants
31,000
people
from
Portugal,
of
whom
4.6%
were
migrants.
Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
75
CRITICISM
•
As
of
OF
pointed
out
by
acculturation
dimensional
versus
the
•
RESEARCH
with
the
As
result
a
effects
3.4
Schwartz
and
health
dimension
original
of
to
of
of
the
it
is
SNOITINIFED
worldwide
ESSENTIAL
How
•
has
vast
rapid
increase
behaviour
,
However
,
that
clear
on
health
This
there
will
has
are
adaptation
uni-
with
•
ignoring
(1997),
the
due
the
to
ties
cosmopolitan
of
their
and
is
an
more
rigorously
that
in
Another
criticism
is
is
one
not
Berry
the
of
–
by
economic
attitudes
of
by
less
•
behaviour
may
protect
change
behaviour—in
as
a
of
and
that
local.
that
it
process
their
this
See
which
local
It
their
were
and
or
global
•
in
whole
is
strategies
three
identity
,
making
the
There
process
but
were
duration
the
to
case
al
and
to
outcomes
the
of
culture
other
between
of
to
studies
the
that
risk
of
residence.
effects
the
of
effects
globalization
of
acculturation
acculturation
to
the
according
local
this
to
or
strategy
strategy
is
formed
See
et
by
Berry
al
an
inuences
the
that
are
more
prioritize
the
common
In
some
Adams
the
USA
expectations,
aspects
different,
emphasize
of
their
as
they
if
the
do
are
two
uniqueness.
(2003)
and
not
even
cultures
See
See
with
this
directions:
or
framework,
identity
development
confusion
Arnett
theoretical
adolescents’
of
formation
a
of
in
one
of
bicultural
self-selected
(2002)
used
to
study
globalization
on
•
Correlational
research
•
Cross-cultural
the
inuence
of
behaviour
comparisons
him,
of
these
methods
are
that
it
is
not
easy
to
depend
the
effects
of
globalization
when
depending
on
In
its
metrics
(self-report
surveys)
and
when
generalizing
turn,
interaction
from
a
relatively
small
and
cooperation
sample
to
a
whole
nation.
of
(2008)
Aim
in
they
the
are
global
3—Sociocultural
values
process.
(2009)—globalization
behaviour
.
included
likely
to
time.
framework,
(integration,
marginalization).
inuences.
cultural
(2009)
distinguish
of
theoretical
that
identity
cultures.
them
The
more
global
to
over
network
choose
the
individuals
of
cooperation
local.
T
o
investigate
strategies.
In
the
this,
approach
to
behaviour
effects
two
of
globalization
alternative
on
cooperation
hypotheses
were
investigated.
(a)
Globalization
interests
Unit
connection
individual
inuences
possible
large-scale
76
of
(2003)
identication
global
essential
and
Buchan
society
interactions,
not
matter
,
correlation
sense,
this
accordance
globalization
inuences
choose,
Also
to
people’
s
understanding
Globalization
a
the
related
increasingly
trying
Adams
interests.
was
et
of
this
over
becoming
suggests
movements
Buchan
acculturation
separation
RESEARCH
✪
are
contrary
converge
inuences
people
globalization,
acculturation
Essential
to
loss
both.
culture”
Supporting
common
and
a
on
Canada,
people’
s
behaviour
predominant
assimilation,
local
In
behaviour
isolate
the
and
on
consequences.
demonstrated
research.
weakening
origin,
argues
outcomes
the
it
signicant
on
Weaknesses
on
a
overweight
“global
and
hypothesis
empirical
interaction
on
(2008)
globalization
The
that
seems
acculturating.
show
Methods
•
is
that
globalization
psychological
reactionary
globalization
and
global
world
trigger
more
inuences
culture,
or
being
cosmopolitan.
opposing
will
tested
group
inuence
today’
s
it
strategies
of
receiving
culture,
which
international
primarily
communication
cooperation
Effects
the
heritage
immigrants’
interconnectedness
cultural
to
the
only)
growth
driven
HEALTH
acculturation
observed
of
(HL
the
is
may
in
more
been
demonstrated
with
Berry
whether
increasing
social,
in
making
globalization
people
•
studies
ON
UNDERSTANDING
interdependence
•
a
did
through
globalization
The
by
not
Globalization
but
most
on
culture,
inuence
Globalization—the
factors
rely
ACCULTURATION
acculturation—accultured
proposed
immigration
exchange.
(2013),
receiving
behaviour
people
al
OF
culture.
this,
The
et
EFFECTS
outcomes
understanding
non-accultured
second
INTO
of
prompts
reactionary
cooperation
one’
s
takes
ethnic,
the
racial
or
movements,
form
of
and
defending
language
group.
the
(b)
Globalization
strengthens
attitudes
by
group
origin.
Method
of
and
weakening
people’
s
their
cosmopolitan
identication
with
their
Personal
Local
Global
account
account
account
+
procedure
+
3
3
T
o
measure
cooperation
strategies
the
researchers
from
Individual
In
a
multilevel
typical
and
sequential
trial
required
subjects
to
•
Each
•
would
distribute
accounts—personal,
cooperation
the
local
be
and
placed
in
the
personal
Each
token
placed
in
the
local
local
contributions
three
2
account
other
was
of
country
,
the
four
the
sum
was
was
added
individuals
participants
multiplied
received
1/4
by
of
from
countries
from
two
that
1
×
×
2
3
saved.
to
the
Figure
same
people
three
×
account
8
other
tokens
among
world.
token
of
10
from
county,
country
experiments.
given
tokens
same
the
+
same
used
people
people
the
•
and
3.4
Personal,
local
and
global
accounts
each
amount.
For
Participants
example,
if
Mike
placed
one
token
in
the
local
account,
Samples
and
so
did
three
other
people
from
his
country
,
from
Argentina,
total
would
become
4
×
2
=
8,
and
each
of
the
•
Each
to
token
the
plus
two
Placing
other
In
The
sum
so
it
the
the
to
the
local
the
Globalization
was
questionnaire
variety
of
social
and
often
movie
from
do
a
if
it
is
shared
of
account
an
and
the
by
strategy).
taken
as
an
taken
a
other
tapping
the
into
different
An
a
as
interests
used:
Iran.
the
There
USA,
were
Italy
,
Russia,
approximately
country
.
of
degree
of
to
global
example
television
of
asks
a
to
who
on
level—that
the
global
account
in
In
of
order
the
were
as
Russia,
Italy,
higher
is,
the
scores
more
on
likely
contribute
the
to
cooperate
more
to
the
world
experiment.
cooperation
Iran,
that
cosmopolitan
cosmopolitan
parochial)
follows:
hypothesis
also
cooperation
increasingly
ranked
the
people’
s
had
Index
South
(and
the
Africa,
countries
Argentina,
USA.
Conclusion
global
a
which
an
economic,
question
programme
support
strengthens
People
levels
of
cosmopolitan
standardized
the
lent
Globalization
Higher
strategy).
which
study
to
operationalization
network
relations.
watch
per
decreasingly
Contributions
Index)
The
attitudes.
individual’
s
was
cosmopolitan
Globalization
in
participants
globalization
•
of
by
you
•
amount.
potentially
measured
part
cultural
“How
is
cooperation
(the
takes
experimenter
,
(parochial
questions
individual
only
amount
world
were
and
Results
people
different
resulting
account
but
from
the
the
added
local
riskiest.
were
interests
by
of
was
three
people
tripled
cooperation
account
parochial
account
same
four
world
operationalization
the
the
1/12
decision,
is
(cosmopolitan
•
in
Africa
tokens.
world
of
was
experiments
contributions
the
from
received
protable
these
an
in
two
groups
tokens
players—
•
placed
participant
most
get
contributions
countries.
the
would
countries
South
four
190
participants
six
the
or
interests
inuences
with
an
globalization
cooperation
to
the
local
individual
geographically
are
associated
strategies—a
to
interests.
reduce
remote
with
stronger
preference
Globalization
perceived
social
of
probably
distance
others.
is
a
country?”
THEORY
BERRY
(2008)—GLOBALIZATION
Essential
its
turn,
the
of
result
the
is
choosing
(integration,
is
local
ACCUL
TURATION
•
understanding
Globalization
✪
AND
closely
one
of
the
assimilation,
of
the
connected
four
and
the
acculturation.
acculturation
separation
interaction
culture
to
or
between
global
strategies
•
marginalization)
the
culture.
inuences
The
Acculturation
The
acculturation
strategies
is
fateful
for
the
ultimate
globalization
of
establishing
a
induce
more
change
in
peoples.
result
uniqueness
of
these
processes
non-dominant
homogeneous
group
is
the
loss
members
of
and
society
.
choice
Both
of
and
non-dominant
In
outcomes
of
these
assumptions
have
been
challenged.
Berry’
s
of
two-dimensional
model
of
acculturation
strategies,
for
globalization.
example,
societies
Acculturation
and
(2008)
describes
globalization
acculturation
contact
the
and
cultural
are
and
lead
how
the
related
to
globalization
to
concepts
change
each
of
are
both
other
.
initiated
on
the
by
intercultural
individual
and
on
and
Possible
Berry
the
that
used
need
to
be
to
be
the
new
process
claims
of
on
of
the
that
basis
multicultural
embraces
integration
both
the
as
original
culture.
of
that
globalization
we
globalization
Globalization
as
a
need
and
to
differentiate
the
process
outcomes
refers
to
between
of
this
societies
rejected
predominant
in
research
in
international
contact,
establishing
an
and
interconnected
popular
strategy
outcomes
(2008)
engaging
assumptions
for
acculturation
process.
T
wo
established
opportunity
Both
level.
Assumptions
be
acculturation
culture
and
to
the
globalization
the
Berry
incorporates
network
of
relations.
Globalization
is
the
thinking.
Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour
77
contact
that
process,
each
provides
according
outcome
acculturation
•
being
likely
dominant
on
to
the
with
these
a
for
four
result
acculturation.
possible
of
the
homogeneous
values
and
This
world
of
culture,
the
societies
•
adopting
cultural
values
that
convergence
the
of
of
the
USA
where
the
will
end
dominant
can
societies
same
time
share
retain
some
unique
(integration).
lead
cultures,
culture
at
groups
the
Globalization
occur
but
features
dominant
of
will
qualities
Non-dominant
no
(2003)—do
change
inuence
norms.
(2008)
Mutual
common
distinctive
understanding
Berry’s
•
outcomes,
adopted
norms
non-dominant
Adams
demonstrated
necessarily
point
have
ultimate
lead
based
Supporting
been
can
•
cultures,
RESEARCH
✪
the
will
(assimilating)
Essential
starting
Berry
,
strategy
.
Globalization
most
the
to
to
up
rejecting
societies
the
leaving
destruction
these
the
growing
(separation).
groups
of
non-
essentially
with
(marginalization).
and
Canada
converge
over
time?
Results
theoretical
outcome
cultural
framework,
of
it
globalization
has
is
The
not
•
values.
initial
expectations
The
cultural
not
converge
distinctly
value
were
not
proles
with
the
different,
of
conrmed.
the
course
and
in
of
some
two
countries
time—they
cases
the
did
remained
differences
Aim
became
T
o
investigate
whether
cultural
values
of
Canadians
assimilate
US
values.
(Note
that
the
USA
is
An
example
dominant
society—for
example,
most
of
the
be
in
Canada
are
US
the
master
statement
of
his
own
“The
father
house”.
The
of
the
family
percentage
lms
agreeing
shown
is
the
must
most
larger
.
would
•
gradually
even
with
this
statement
in
the
Canadian
national
lms).
sample
18%,
from
while
1992
the
to
2000
decreased
percentage
agreeing
from
in
the
26%
US
to
national
Method
sample
A
survey
consisting
of
86
value
increased
from
42%
to
49%.
statements.
Conclusion
Participants
Globalization
Representative
samples
from
both
populations
with
a
total
in
14,000
and
(2003)
Also
in
three
cultural
points
in
values
time:
of
citizens
1992,
GLOBALIZATION
dominant
cultures.
The
outcomes
of
1996
the
and
the
with
inuence
depending
INFLUENCE
on
the
ADOLESCENTS’
(2008)
(2002)
inuence
of
individuals
globalization
strategy
on
identity
the
may
same
and
chosen.
out
argues
that
the
primary
globalization
is
on
think
about
individuals’
themselves
in
groups.
He
also
In
For
claims
they
are
that
still
the
most
discovering
more
relation
to
interested
which
is
in
the
global
driving
affected
their
group
identity
,
distinguishes
four
main
such
media
force
(such
of
kind
of
•
of
their
in
the
inuences
world
develop
of
a
as
the
norms
the
local
culture
for
confusion
substance
use,
them
may
of
the
culture.
is
too
lead
depression
to
global
At
alien
further
to
globalization
some
people
and
suicide.
choose
cultures
with
like-minded
to
form
individuals
identity
that
is
not
dependent
on
the
and
global
Self-selected
religious
cultures
may
fundamentalism
to
be
diverse,
musical
ranging
subcultures.
music
globalization
bicultural
the
local
culture.
by
unies
different
them
from
is
the
an
attempt
mainstream
to
nd
global
an
identity
that
culture.
on
The
age
period
for
identity
culture,
This
immigrants
is
formation
may
be
of
a
increasing,
societies.
bicultural
to
the
members
3—Sociocultural
especially
This
identity
approach
to
among
happens
has
not
which
used
increases,
to
end
and
typically
18,
are
being
extended
to
a
later
life
period
by
(18–25).
and
similar
and
explorations,
identity:
groups.
non-western
development
Unit
from
global
developed
minority
in
stems
the
confusion
adolescents
78
from
identity
ethnic
the
identity
part
Identity
global
Identity
in
globalization.
age
of
belief
identity
.
people
another
as
individuals,
their
the
reach.
an
identity
part
the
they
•
Many
on
is
and
is
adolescents’
depend
social
What
television),
globalization
identity—how
from
usually
these
time,
of
response
culture.
adolescents:
of
psychological
develop
•
process
non-dominant
chosen.
undermine
self-selected
He
straightforward
IDENTITY?
culture
theoretical
•
and
a
subsumes
USA
successful.
Berry’s
of
strategy
problems
Arnett
are
culture
2000.
understanding
accordance
framework,
differ
studied
at
DOES
Essential
✪
necessarily
the
acculturation
Canada
HOW
not
which
participants.
Procedure
Adams
is
of
if
been
behaviour
In
conclusion,
today’
s
world
and
more
this
with
on
the
less
individual
the
local
(2002)
based
identity
embracing
and
Arnett
is
diversity
and
out
that
prescribed
choices.
confusion,
culture.
points
on
but
Some
identity
social
people
others
react
succeed
assimilating
both
in
roles
to
in
the
global
METHODS
Essential
✪
Mainly
USED
TO
STUDY
THE
INFLUENCE
OF
GLOBALIZATION
of
understanding
correlational
cross-cultural
methods
comparisons.
This
are
used,
implies
a
and
they
number
As
we
•
have
measure
Buchan
an
the
et
al
the
As
a
cultures
the
into
interacting
of
that
Hofstede’
s
the
other
HL
can
For
There
not
example,
tokens
to
are
scores.
to
is
to
true
are
the
experiment
inferences
in
should
is
inuence
correlational.
this
be
It
two
First,
always
made
a
be
is
•
made
A
or
with
involves
each
be
on
applied
sample.
An
may
a
other
,
the
equally
set
of
used
to
a
a
constructs,
and
Another
is
each
not
on
as
it
open
research)
is
not
of
a
crude
on
of
easy
in
a
of
the
to
select
culture.
society
these
gets
survey
which
biases
as
is
social
generalization
people
whole
a
particular
processes.
data
such
group
studying
well
as
in
of
is
so
the
the
They
are
any
within
development
since
to
a
the
using
to
whole
interaction,
effects
in
Second,
a
behaviour
even
of
as
(a
sample
nation,
sample
Nation
which
that
will
scores
are
estimates.
occurring
as
time
self-report
is
changeable.
the
especially
results
with
weaknesses
the
It
scores
of
globalization
scores
occurred
isolate
been
cultures
natural
have
more
rely
challenge
dynamic
how
acquiescence.
only
and
at
course
the
in
globalization
metric
major
leap.
behaviour
cross-
culture
have
dimensions.
of
choice
of
common
such
compare
common
of
uid
multiple
Success
each
of
of
common
Surveys
these
to
a
existence
dimensions.
be
so
idea
studies.
example
operationalize
surveys
the
look
the
and
representative
major
to
reliable
part
therefore
area.
is
over
they
from
long
BEHAVIOUR
more
desirability
through
allocated
establish
cross-cultural
cultural
against
a
in
a
other
within
that
a
globalization
experimentation
of
are
state
individual
be
factors
is
in
to
may
culture
absence
of
cultures
constant
changes
culture
some
the
inuence
fact
a
result
(for
that
would
globalization).
not
this
an
area
of
example,
easy
of
T
o
matter,
research
possible.
use
TIP
extension
behaviour
.
Parts
a
depends
research
developed
This
research.
cooperation
to
behaviour
globalization
method
the
EXAM
used
in
globalization
metrics
of
on
used
cause–effect
studies
is
be
taking
conduct
cultural
in
can
caution.
Research
is
in
participants
methods
to
result,
with
involved
measured
where
globalization
impossible
•
(2009)
methods
accounts.
However
,
of
multiple
variables
experiment
bank
•
seen,
surveys
change
involved
of
limitations.
•
these
culture
involve
ON
of
includes
Combining
sociocultural
three
these
topics
gives
approach
you
that
nine
to
behaviour
a.
can
be
applied
potential
The
areas
individual
to
any
from
and
of
the
which
the
b.
group
three
exam
parts
Cultural
of
of
the
questions
sociocultural
may
be
c.
origins
behaviour
approach
to
asked.
Cultural
inuences
individual
and
identity
cognition
on
attitudes,
and
behaviours
1.
How
globalization
may
inuence
1a
1b
1c
2a
2b
2c
3a
3b
3c
behaviour
2.
3.
The
effect
and
local
Methods
of
of
the
used
to
globalization
T
able
3.6
There
is
interaction
inuences
study
on
considerable
on
of
global
behaviour
the
inuence
behaviour
overlap
in
these
areas.
The
blocks
we
have
covered
in
this
section
address
all
nine
Sociocultural
areas
holistically.
approach
to
behaviour
79
4
ABNORMAL
PSYCHOLOGY
T
opics
4.1
Factors
inuencing
4.1.1
Normality
4.1.2
Classication
4.1.3
Validity
4.1.4
The
and
role
diagnosis
versus
of
4.2.3
abnormality
systems
reliability
clinical
4.2.4
of
diagnosis
biases
in
Etiology
4.2.1
abnormal
Prevalence
4.2.2
4.1
of
4.1.1
SNOITINIFED
various
affecting
do
we
history
deviate
decide
of
are
study
the
of
as
is
as
a
section
patterns
accepted
not
behaviour
has
question.
describes
deviations,
only
those
mental
disorders
in
treatment
of
depression
treatment
mental
health,
human
existence.
severe
enough
to
be
classied
as
of
norms;
study
all
is
abnormal?
witnessed
The
most
many
inuential
of
it
social
various
raises
Abnormality
as
and
(1989)
and
the
it
is
social
based
question
of
norms.
on
This
•
common
dening
social
based
seven
that
on
Rosenhan
criteria
degrees
of
rigorous
way
combinations
of
themselves
•
abnormality
of
The
these
each
criteria.
as
Jahoda
a
deviation
(1958)
from
dened
six
ideal
mental
characteristics
provide
of
statistical
quantify
of
disorder
systems
and
delineating
This
approach
the
positive
balanced
many
side
of
description
elements
infrequency.
with
the
of
the
the
used
in
between
of
avoids
the
in
approach
on
statistical
and
system
guidance
This
provides
based
course
altogether
by
It
However
,
abnormality
are
with
unusual.
abnormality
sciences.
change
clinicians
on
a
statistically
model
individual
is
healthy
,
abnormality
Classication
Abnormality
it
quantify
.
social
may
of
be
to
to
to
of
medical
denition
to
as
abnormal
focusing
While
difcult
Abnormality
a
thus
means
conventions
functioning.
proposed
suggested
it
are
equals
contexts.
inadequate
established
from
because
in
what
model
deviation
However
,
Seligman
a
this
norms
health.
treatment
culture
of
depression
diagnosis
follows.
appealing
abnormality
•
of
of
abnormality
this
does
psychology
sense.
be
from
whether
answering
Abnormality
can
dene;
psychology
abnormal
to
approach
versus
role
effectiveness
UNDERSTANDING
approaches
•
The
psychology—a
that
approaches
•
Psychological
4.3.4
Biological
approaches
abnormal
ESSENTIAL
The
4.3.3
disorders:
however
,
How
the
treatment
to
Sociocultural
disorders
Biological
depression
behaviour
of
4.3.2
for
Abnormal
disorders:
depression
T
reatment
disorders
for
easy
for
for
and
Explanations
existing
Explanations
Assessing
Normality
Cognitive
explanations
4.3.1
explanations
Abnormality—not
disorders:
depression
psychology
rates
Factors
for
for
diagnosis
4.3
4.2
Explanations
explanations
a
single
instead
of
norms
time.
denes
symptoms.
medical
model
diagnosing
to
disorders
them.
THEORY
ABNORMALITY
This
approach
rather
it
is
a
abnormality
AS
does
A
not
DEVIATION
belong
common-sense
as
something
to
any
approach
that
is
not
FROM
particular
of
SOCIAL
NORMS
author;
•
dening
“acceptable”
convenient
in
the
If
society
.
an
the
of
the
individual
behaves
in
interests
as
ethically
a
abnormality
simple
based
and
on
of
the
impose
a
society
,
abnormal
and
way
this
even
may
control
that
does
individual
isolated.
be
over
not
may
Since
citizens.
meet
be
easily
such
a
approach
Strength
suggests
abnormality
to
possibility
It
dening
societies
labelled
Evaluation
to
for
intuitively
common
appealing
denition
of
•
There
and
sense.
even
in
theory
,
this
approach
may
be
dangerous.
are
yet
exists
cases
when
harmful
behaviours
is
a
to
a
the
behaviour
individual.
drawback
of
the
is
socially
Not
acceptable
including
such
denition.
Limitations
•
•
Abnormality
norms
and
80
in
Unit
is
dened
themselves
are
relative
to
social
changeable
(both
time).
4—Abnormal
psychology
norms,
but
Social
norms
differ
depending
on
the
same
behaviour
will
be
context
(for
social
example,
the
at
concert
perceived
cross-culturally
a
rock
and
at
a
business
meeting).
differently
THEORY
ROSENHAN
Rosenhan
can
be
AND
and
used
SELIGMAN
Seligman
to
(1989)
establish
•
suffering
•
maladaptiveness
(1989)—ABNORMALITY
proposed
seven
criteria
that
AS
INADEQUATE
•
It
abnormality:
FUNCTIONING
operationalizes
be
established
abnormal
by
behaviour
in
a
way
that
can
observation.
Limitations
(for
example,
inability
to
achieve
major
•
life
The
denition
public
•
seems
to
be
over-inclusive.
For
example,
goals)
unconventional
behaviour
(that
is,
not
like
that
of
displays
of
affection
may
cause
observer
most
discomfort
(especially
enough
classify
in
some
cultures),
but
is
this
people)
•
unpredictability
•
irrationality
behaves
in
of
actions
(others
this
or
cannot
loss
of
control
understand
over
why
the
to
observer
witness
the
•
Very
•
Sometimes
(it
makes
others
uncomfortable
few
behaviours
meet
may
all
seven
contradict
unconventional
individual
criteria.
each
behaviour
other
.
may
For
sometimes
achieve
major
life
help
goals.
behaviour)
moral
account
of
for
these
limitations,
Rosenhan
and
Seligman
standards.
(1989)
Evaluation
criteria
to
To
of
behaviour?
way)
discomfort
violation
abnormal
actions
an
•
as
person
example,
•
it
the
approach
rather
suggested
than
d e g re e s
of
a
that
abnormality
black-and-white
abnormality
is
a
continuum
phenomenon;
based
on
how
many
t h e re
exist
criteria
Strengths
a re
•
It
embraces
example,
more
socially
individual
dimensions
acceptable
of
abnormality
,
behaviour
that
met.
for
causes
suffering.
THEORY
JAHODA
Jahoda
point.
(1958)—ABNORMALITY
(1958)
She
used
believed
the
it
idea
was
of
mental
much
more
AS
A
health
DEVIATION
as
important
the
to
starting
FROM
IDEAL
MENTAL
Evaluation
of
the
HEAL
TH
approach
dene
Strengths
healthy
behaviour
than
disorders.
•
The
six
(1958)
characteristics
proposed
•
efcient
•
realistic
•
voluntary
•
accurate
of
ideal
mental
health
that
Jahoda
were:
It
is
more
humanistic—it
focuses
on
health
rather
than
disorders.
•
self-perception
It
provides
a
balanced
description
of
what
it
means
to
be
healthy
.
self-esteem
Limitations
control
of
behaviour
•
perception
of
the
It
seems
so
•
positive
•
productivity
.
impossible
for
a
person
to
achieve
all
as
entirely
six
criteria,
world
most
people
would
be
classied
“not
relationships
healthy”
•
Some
in
this
framework.
parameters
may
require
that
the
a
are
difcult
subjective
client’
s
to
measure.
opinion
perception
of
of
the
the
For
example,
clinician
world
is
to
it
establish
“accurate”.
THEORY
ABNORMALITY
This
approach
than
T
raits
deciding
and
dened
AS
looks
if
at
“the
separate
whole
behaviours
as
STATISTICAL
are
statistically
traits
person”
considered
unusual.
The
INFREQUENCY
and
is
behaviours
normal
abnormal
denition
or
if
rather
•
It
labels
abnormal.
•
It
links
they
are
behaviours
to
statistical
and
traits,
criteria
not
used
people.
elsewhere
in
social
research.
requires
Limitations
thresholds
after
which
we
would
consider
behaviour
to
•
become
“unusual”.
These
thresholds
have
been
Statistical
they
somewhat
arbitrarily
in
statistics
for
social
norms
sciences,
and
are
dened
to
the
following
thresholds
of
statistical
p
<
0.05
(rarer
than
5
cases
out
of
p
<
0.01
•
p
<
0.001
(rarer
than
1
than
case
1
out
case
of
out
does
not
homosexuality
several
of
decades
increases
Statistically
the
remain
the
is
prevalent
more
ago;
(the
infrequent
undesirable—one
of
because
and
same.
For
the
example,
the
average
today
IQ
in
than
the
it
world
Flynn
effect).
1,000).
•
Evaluation
changeable
population,
100)
gradually
(rarer
are
the
100)
was
•
to
signicance:
overt
•
relative
they
population
link
themselves
dened
behaviours
example
is
are
not
unusually
always
high
IQ.
approach
Strengths
•
It
is
to
very
those
quantiable:
of
a
large
traits
and
behaviours
representative
are
compared
population.
Abnormal
psychology
81
THEORY
THE
The
MEDICAL
medical
MODEL
model
of
behaviour
,
much
like
symptoms
and
set
a
(symptomology
causes
may
inferred
be
ABNORMALITY
abnormality
a
physical
of
and
OF
causes
behind
etiology).
inferred
and
assumes
disease,
that
has
a
those
Symptoms
treatment
abnormal
set
disagree
of
be
symptoms
may
should
be
on
to
•
these
It
is
causes.
t
to
exible
tested
is
the
use
symptoms
observed,
target
able
This
model
abnormal
disorders
system
avoids
one
of
together
by
in
a
dened
set
of
of
for
one,
a
dening
All
these
classication
assume
sets
need
altogether
.
symptoms.
systems
other
the
behaviour
that
each
symptoms
symptoms
general
Instead
them
focuses
descriptively
descriptions
system.
disorder
that
denition
it
can
Such
are
by
then
mental
a
•
classication
by
be
differentiated
from
“4.1.2
Many
•
One
and
Classication
(this
systems
but
language
presence
Like
any
the
being
they
of
of
form
a
disorder
.
it
and
of
should
observable
model,
observations
takes
The
of
can
be
rened
new
if
the
editions
of
published).
mental
symptoms
symptom
any
must
as
the
as
may
single
symptoms.
•
of
the
empirical
symptoms
observed
a
systems”.
Evaluation
disorder
,
Limitations
brought
characterized
See
a
for
on
is
(disorders).
on
testable.
perfect
classication
of
common
agree
and
against
not
origin
the
be
of
an
disorder
This
is
a
illness
are
physical
indicator
manifests
difculty
that
not
as
easily
disease.
of
multiple
itself
in
a
disorders,
variety
classication
of
systems
tackle.
problem
well.
For
of
threshold
example,
if
is
relevant
some
for
this
approach
symptoms
are
present
and
approach
others
are
not,
do
we
still
diagnose
a
disorder?
Strengths
•
It
makes
diagnosis
regarding
4.1.2
what
NOITINIFED
system
for
of
each
ESSENTIAL
Classication
of
system—a
diagnostic
diagnostic
diagnosis
model
the
of
based
on
diagnostic
category
,
and
sets
beliefs
Psychiatrists
may
systems
categories,
these
clinicians’
disorder
.
Classication
Classication
a
independent
causes
of
a
manual
set
rules
of
for
providing
Psychoanalytic
mental
illness,
making
and
followers,
a
symptoms.
his
drives
and
In
DSM,
systems
are
the
foundation
of
the
medical
•
of
the
causes
of
classication
the
of
The
Diagnostic
the
and
American
currently
the
Statistical
in
its
Psychiatric
Manual
(DSM)
fth
edition
Association
is
(DSM-5)
and
(APA).
The
International
published
The
is
on
about
of
to
diagnosing
Sigmund
identifying
childhood
Freud
unconscious
experiences
was
a
major
based
behaviour
on
to
shift
the
from
establishing
clinician’
s
describing
a
set
interpretation
is
and
trying
to
of
observable
create
classication
categories
would
not
overlap.
In
way
,
of
this
the
role
theory
in
is
widely
used
diagnosis
was
gradually
diagnosis
more
reduced.
This
might
have
made
in
supercial,
but
it
also
allowed
clinicians
to
common
USA.
widely
•
there
client’
s
Classication
of
Diseases
diverse
used
Chinese
also
by
in
the
World
European
Organization
and
of
Mental
backgrounds
use
a
and
arrive
at
similar
diagnoses.
is
Challenges
countries.
Classication
widely
Health
theoretical
(ICD-10)
language
is
theorizing
approach
works
published
It
with
•
the
systems
that
by
on
focused
disorders
symptoms
•
based
UNDERSTANDING
abnormality
.
Examples
tradition—the
symptoms
Disorders
(CCMD-3)
Someone
designing
challenges,
used.
validity
some
versus
of
a
classication
which
reliability;
are:
system
faces
explanation
cross-cultural
a
variety
versus
of
description;
applicability
.
History
•
Views
on
of
these
changes
systems
82
mental
result
Unit
illness
scientic
(for
are
have
advances
reected
example,
the
4—Abnormal
gradually
and
in
social
the
changed
history
DSM).
psychology
as
movements,
of
a
Research
and
Empirical
classication
research
investigating
and
their
reliability
of
of
classication
validity
and
systems
reliability
.
diagnosis”.
takes
See
the
“4.1.3
form
of
Validity
History
Edition
Year
Characteristics
DSM-I
1952
This
DSM-II
1968
edition
was
in
childhood
of
the
The
publication
psychiatry
DSM-III
1980
to
publication
1994
DSM
psychoanalytic
was
from
DSM-III
was
the
on
traditions:
establishing
symptoms
result
were
of
for
focused
clinicians
causes,
doubts
or
a
from
which
scientists
“unconscious
form
more
raised
of
on
in
social
looked
involved
explaining
the
abnormality
.
categories
had
to
overdiagnosis
clinically
disorders
265
(too
were
be
made
to
for
a
origins
lot
many
revised
of
of
abnormal
interpretation
signicant
if
more
could
DSM-IV
they
such
activists
However
,
them.
in
5
be
behaviour
on
the
part
With
a
major
focus
(the
diagnosed
with
or
still
ability
was
on
a
of
anti-
a
done
lot
them.
psychiatrists
questioned
by
describing
a
the
change
sets
of
system).
mental
disorder).
signicance
interfered
the
retained
describing
(1973)
multi-axial
clinical
distress
this
using
example,
than
the
Rosenhan
groups
the
disorders
and
criticized
(for
DSM-II
regarding
as
“scientic”,
included
created
behaviourists
social
community
organized
people
and
and
interpreting
Studies
describing
disorders
example,
and
scientic
and
included
(for
drives”)
manipulation).
normality
categories
considered
as
interpreting
DSM-III
diagnostic
attacks
psychiatry
was
and
by
“trauma”
between
explaining
criticized
the
it
as
Diagnostic
symptoms,
was
response,
triggered
such
features;
diagnosis.
observable
DSM-IV
on
focus
viewed
differentiate
of
focus
was
movement
reliably
validity
of
itself
constructs
psychoanalytic
The
based
The
the
psychiatrist.
unobservable
of
heavily
traumas.
of
In
criterion:
with
daily
functioning.
DSM-5
2013
The
multi-axial
was
eliminated.
interview”
T
able
Challenges
•
was
Cultural
were
criticized
variability
included
to
help
for
of
being
articial
symptoms
clinicians
avoid
was
validity
cultural
CLASSIFICATION
less
room
diagnosis,
across
for
reecting
bias
in
and
the
tools
reality
such
as
of
things.
the
Ultimately
,
“Cultural
it
formulation
diagnosis.
their
of
discrete
explanation
it
clinicians
may
makes
(more
reduce
and
of
is
eliminated
diagnosis
reliable),
unique
but
•
delineation
•
cross-cultural
•
population
systems
reliability
.
A
of
classication
versus
degrees
of
categories
applicability
of
that
the
can
population
be
(percentage
categorized
as
of
mentally
the
ill).
takes
good
the
form
of
systems
•
minimize
potential
biases
in
the
diagnostic
process.
classication
these
aspects
are
investigated
in
multiple
research
studies.
should:
The
allow
different
clinicians
using
it
to
arrive
at
the
medical
diagnoses,
even
if
their
theoretical
orientations
model
is
just
that—a
model,
a
construct
that
we
same
design
are
to
describe
reality
.
We
conduct
numerous
checks
of
not
how
the
between
medicalization
individual
All
system
categories
validity)
research
classication
validity
diagnostic
abnormality
consideration
Empirical
research
establishing
of
(which
RESEARCH
well
the
construct
ts
the
observed
data,
and
if
the
t
same
is
•
not
SYSTEM
description
reliability—when
process
circumstances
Empirical
A
•
consistent
leaves
DESIGNING
versus
versus
the
more
IN
involve:
explanation
from
•
and
emphasized
4.1
CHALLENGES
•
system
allow
a
diagnosis
that
corresponds
to
the
real
not
perfect,
we
modify
the
model
and
repeat
the
cycle
of
problem
checks.
experienced
by
the
patient
Using
•
take
into
account
cultural
differences
and
reporting,
demonstrating
abnormal
behaviour
and
the
example
of
the
DSM,
this
research
into
reliability
regarding
interpreting
symptoms
validity
of
classication
systems
is
discussed
in
“4.1.3
of
Validity
and
reliability
of
diagnosis”.
Abnormal
psychology
83
4.1.3
Validity
and
reliability
Comorbidity—co-occurrence
of
two
or
more
of
diagnosis
diagnoses
is
valid,
the
development
of
the
disorder
should
be
predictable
Diagnosis
(“dia”
SNOITINIFED
knowledge;
abnormal
the
=
telling
differentiating,
apart)—relating
behaviour
classication
(symptoms)
a
pattern
a
certain
=
of
Reliability
category
in
system
Misdiagnosis—when
a
disorder
match
that
to
“gnosis”
does
not
person
is
the
diagnosed
actual
with
the
diagnosis
validity—the
ability
of
the
disorder
will
respond
to
ESSENTIAL
UNDERSTANDING
Validity
reliability
dene
and
the
quality
of
are
two
treatment;
to
essential
if
are
two
ways
the
to
reliability
method
diagnosis—the
the
of
extent
to
of
the
method.
See
“Establishing
inter-rater
which
the
patient’
s
that
•
The
tendency
and
of
was
patient;
accuracy
diagnosis
different
arrive
also
at
known
as
of
diagnosis;
reects
the
that
real
problem
continued,
DSM-5
for
some
became
but
paradoxically
typically
diagnostic
lower
.
categories
reliability
They
that
even
remained
of
the
unchanged
from
the
earlier
editions,
such
as
test-
MDD—Regier
retest
same
which
system
predict
characteristics
inter-rater
the
Validity
estimates
establish
to
diagnosis
diagnosis.
audio-/video-recording
for
extent
classication
reliability”
largely
diagnosis:
same
“inter-rater
dropped
There
the
a
behaviour
diagnosis
same
nature
how
diagnosis—the
using
is,
Predictive
of
clinicians
reliability
et
al
(2013)
of
•
This
paradox
may
be
explained
by
the
fact
that
research
diagnosis”.
in
A
diagnosis
is
valid
if
it
corresponds
to
the
actual
this
area
has
become
more
rigorous.
The
test-retest
disorder
.
method
is
now
almost
video-recording
always
method,
preferred
thus
reliability
to
the
audio-/
estimates
may
be
Trade-off
more
There
is
usually
a
trade-off
between
validity
and
conservative,
classication
from
the
systems.
process
of
As
interpretation
diagnosis
in
an
is
across
clinicians,
some
attempt
nuances
to
may
be
ignored,
meaning
same
time
more
realistic—
et
al
(2015)
increase
and
that
of
diagnosis
individual
The
circumstances
the
eliminated
Validity
consistency
at
reliability
Chmielewski
of
but
key
problems
related
to
establishing
validity
of
diagnosis
the
are:
diagnosis
See
is
not
perfectly
“Relationship
valid
between
for
a
particular
validity
and
individual.
reliability
•
heterogeneity
•
diagnosis
•
the
•
stability
•
choosing
of
clinical
presentation
of
based
on
symptomology
rather
than
etiology
diagnosis”.
Reliability
Reliability
attempts
of
to
of
the
the
editions
of
the
DSM
reects
consistency
of
diagnosis
by
different
of
found
1962),
•
the
to
early
be
very
more
of
categories
are
two
example,
al
was
shown
(for
initiative
and
to
•
DSM-II)
Beck
make
eliminate
higher
,
to
be
but
more
considerable.
See
et
interpretation
some
Di
than
Nardo
et
to
assess
inter-rater
inter-rater
reliability
The
the
a u d i o - / v i d e o - re c o rd i n g
conducts
patient;
re c o rd i n g
then
•
of
this
is
diagnoses
a
clinical
interview
given
makes
a
of
to
a
re c o rd e d
d i ff e re n t
diagnosis
a re
is
and
clinician
i n d e p e n d e n t l y.
who
The
two
a
The
natural
As
limitation
of
diagnosis
may
questions
asked
patient
method—two
the
84
the
same
Unit
rst
depend,
during
responds
disorder
ill
(at
(1973)
to
the
of
in
the
two
of
diagnosis.
diagnostic
clinical
biases
in
ability
is
to
brought
tell
time
detect
objectively
into
mentally
when
the
mental
known.
A
question
healthy
DSM-II
classic
the
people
was
in
from
use).
See
(1973)
situation
will
a
in
result,
two
conduct
it
diagnosis.
method
somewhat
clinicians
the
However,
clinicians
scenario
estimates
clinicians
differently,
that
of
is
conducting
which
in
the
observe
very
reliability
the
same
contribute
audio-/video-
exactly
unlikely
of
will
in
the
real
diagnosis
same
life.
may
be
inated.
second
patient
to
method
for
the
4—Abnormal
is
clinical
is
the
is
much
necessity
to
less
articial.
keep
the
time
However
,
interval
the
between
independently
.
its
example,
non-verbal
method
conduct
the
The
role
psychiatrists’
the
psychiatrists
behaviour—a
limitation
with
The
biases
are
validity
c o m p a re d .
test-retest
interviews
of
mentally
variance
The
•
of
Rosenhan
by
recording
the
“4.1.4
There
assess
diagnosis
to
with
to
systematic
study
the
In
m e t h o d— o n e
interview
quantied.
used
when
ability
(1993),
reliability
of
See
Assessment
others;
al
directly
disorder
interview
clinician
treatment.
diagnosis”.
diagnostic
reliable
be
commonly
process.
al
diagnostic
diagnosis.
•
cannot
Rosenhan
Establishing
ways
symptoms
appropriate
Assessment
(1992)
RESEARCH
There
low
an
and
process.
DSM-III
was
et
(DSM-I
observable
were
spread
Williams
editions
triggered
diagnostic
Reliability
the
the
which
categories
from
Validity
approaches
Reliability
was
of
comorbidity
the
clinicians.
•
of
DSM
various
improve
issue
articiality.
on
the
nature
interview
reactions
psychology
of
The
or
the
of
how
the
clinician.
two
patient’
s
interviews
short.
symptoms
diagnosis
will
behaviour
,
may
partially
and
the
reect
reliability
underestimated.
If
interval
change
of
the
is
too
naturally
.
real
diagnosis
long,
changes
in
the
Inconsistencies
this
in
case
the
will
in
patient’
s
be
RELATIONSHIP
Validity
and
inversely
reliability
related:
tendency
to
How
this
be
can
of
we
their
notice
T
o
need
same
categories.
need
to
the
this,
be
the
sense,
the
and
this
all
and
to
systems
ignore
be
does
not
DIAGNOSIS
be
a
In
an
on
the
biases,
more
the
Unreliable
to
DSM-I
and
At
reliability
rst,
is
may
low.
For
example,
agreement
was
only
shown
to
initiative
on
a
54%
eliminated
(or
may
In
be
to
specic
observational
DSM
was
et
(1962)
al
the
not)
4.1
and
low.
This
thus
to
be
extremely
that
for
between
two
psychiatrists
of
caused
DSM-II
the
categories
in
APA
the
DSM-I
was
to
DSM-5
even
is
for
an
•
more
also
“scientic”.
conrmed
to
reliability
enhanced
the
all
et
DSM-5
the
one
that
of
there
was
diagnosis
a
using
obvious
DSM
by
the
addition
(SCID)—a
clinicians
diagnosis
mental
•
Di
to
of
the
Structured
standardized
follow
the
average,
became
disorders,
Nardo
such
•
although
on
the
et
it
same
improvement
was
acceptable
but
interview
found
criteria
as
anxiety
et
different
al
(OCD),
(1992)
“almost
seemed
perfect”
to
disorder
has
clear
but
that
of
the
categories
(2013)
and
out
more
of
reliability
earlier
that
summarized
reported
23
than
reliability.
of
editions,
remained
data
mixed
diagnostic
half
to
some
poor
of
for
•
in
the
reliability
and
was
from
results.
categories
demonstrated
than
abuse
a
has
social
was
nonetheless
range
the
diagnosis,
for
DSM-III
largely
eld
On
trials
the
that
were
moderate
other
hand,
six
to
categories
and
three
Major
categories
depressive
were
in
disorder
categories
which
is
that
had
surprising
“weak”
because
and
whether
or
eld
obvious
As
probably
much
from
trials
we
to
earlier
DSM-5
method
often
know,
the
of
the
earlier
of
and
Most
exclusively
reliability,
audio-/video-
more
of
of
research
studies.
almost
estimates
reality
paradox
establishing
used
are
this
reliability
methods
to
for
method
closer
explained
studies
rigorous
compared
studies
test-retest
(2015)
moder n
test-retest
earlier
change
of
reliability
conservative,
clinical
in
but
diagnosis.
not
manifestations.
more
al
more
as
the
“weak”.
et
importantly,
the
not
DSM.
that
use
recordings.
reliability
varied
did
the
procedures,
used
for
test-retest
in
of
observing
while
that
on
the
range.
among
of
category
diagnosis
obsessive-
reliability
“moderate”
mostly
weak
Chmielewski
by
some
others.
phobias
categories
On
unacceptable
editions
issues
For
Results
of
studies
are
current
research
studies
and
earlier
research
behavioural
not
directly
comparable,
but
we
can
assume
phobia.
that
progress
show
that
Clinical
(GAD).
behavioural
substance
manifestations
Since
targets
that
•
example,
al
hand,
Current
a
as
This
was
excellent
excellent
showed
depend
reliability
for
simple
disorder
diagnostic
in
even
low
(1993)
disorder
This
and
al
generalized
from
represented
protocol.
universal—reliability
remained
compulsive
for
not
diagnostic
Williams
diagnosis
visible
DSM-III.
this
However
,
than
diagnostic
reliability
allowed
of
studies
lower
for
(MDD)
for
recent
often
Regier
the
Interview
reliability
reliable
unchanged.
start
DSM
Paradoxically,
were
was
and
Both
DSM-IV
studies
improvement
valid
DSM—history
strong
Research
not
Validity
studied,
DSM-III
valid
be
found
Reliability
diagnostic
and
found
diagnosis
average.
similarly
make
and
this
from
DSM-5
the
Beck
on
valid
mean
perfectly.
DSM-II
of
but
differences.
Figure
of
Unreliable,
achieve
Reliable,
Reliability
invalid
(independent
compromised.
RESEARCH
and
obvious
patient
may
to
symptoms
attempt
circumstances
the
irrespective
them
“objective”
validity
reliability
personal
interpretation
diagnosis,
to
has
OF
classication
clinicians,
and
individual
t
tend
validity
and
a
possible,
focus
subtle
of
attribute
and
individual
subjective
of
that
interpretation).
diagnosis
process
validity
reliability
ensure
systems
RELIABILITY
versa.
between
observable
ignoring
when
vice
AND
increases,
backgrounds
For
classication
However,
that
very
clinician’
s
symptoms
and
symptoms
same
of
classication
increase
to
VALIDITY
reliability
trade-off
theoretical
the
of
as
decrease,
explained?
system
BETWEEN
obvious,
this
line
estimates
obtained
from
the
recent
studies
are
more
was
realistic.
continued
and
the
new
editions
(DSM-IV
and
DSM-5)
•
further
rened
diagnostic
categories
to
increase
The
DSM
diagnosis
of
diagnosis,
especially
for
the
disorders
that
had
with
low
reliability
of
on
succeeded
average,
in
but
increasing
this
reliability
remains
of
inconsistent
been
across
associated
has
consistency
diagnoses.
Further
work
needs
to
be
done
to
diagnosis.
enhance
reliability
of
certain
diagnostic
Abnormal
categories.
psychology
85
VALIDITY
Validity
the
is
OF
the
reality
DIAGNOSIS
extent
(that
is,
to
which
reects
diagnosis
the
real
corresponds
nature
of
the
to
•
Selecting
patient’
s
problem).
this
problems
related
to
validity
of
that
treatment
sense,
Key
treatment—diagnosis
treatment
will
be
targets
effectiveness
determines
prescribed,
the
of
real
and
cause
treatment
is
it
of
a
is
a
the
type
disorder
.
test
of
important
for
that
In
validity
a
of
diagnosis
diagnosis.
•
Heterogeneity
of
same
can
clinical
presentation—one
and
the
Validity
disorder
manifest
itself
differently
in
be
patients,
so
the
diagnostic
manual
should
of
diagnosis
cannot
be
directly
quantied,
but
it
can
different
allow
for
assessed
through
research
of
clinical
biases.
T
o
achieve
some
this,
two
ways
are
commonly
used.
exibility
.
•
•
Classication
is
based
on
symptomology
rather
Assessment
This
means
that
diagnostic
categories
various
because
two
disorders
that
have
distinct
manifest
themselves
in
similar
Comorbidity—this
is
B
together
,
an
issue
because
if
disorders
A
occur
it
be
just
symptoms
of
a
raises
more
with
at
the
the
question:
same
•
other
words,
the
symptoms
different
disorders.
Stability
stable,
of
they
general
disorder
so
the
are
where
to
draw
disorder
symptoms
diagnosis
have
stable
in
to
on
their
ensure
to
to
classic
study
differentiate
The
make
study
the
versus
are
The
that
would
the
be
rst
tell
the
whether
See
between
criteria
the
mental
the
between
elements
of
the
two
should
for
the
same
patient
using
disorder
ability
is
to
diagnose
objectively
the
known
(but
not
psychiatrist).
links
“4.1.4
to
a
The
The
This
in
insane
second
variety
role
of
approach
was
used
of
clinical
clinical
is
in
a
biases
biases
more
direct
Rosenhan’s
in
in
test
of
(1973)
study
.
places
ability
health
process
more
of
None
of
in
a
sane
•
and
naturalistic
insane
participant
hospital
The
normal
•
The
patients
as
in
ever
fact
of
largely
of
patient
time
was
suspected
that
the
healthy
.
the
symptoms
were
amount
each
staff
were
behaviour
misinterpreted
modifying
observable.
and
the
pseudo-patients
of
pseudo-patients
of
a
ignored
spent
under
was
often
disorder
.
by
by
the
staff.
members
seven
The
of
minutes
a
the
staff
day
.
setting
Follow-up
people.
the
observation.
that
was
sent
to
study
professional
Rosenhan’
s
with
backgrounds
symptoms
Method
study
to
approach
Since
Field
affected
system.
psychiatrists’
the
validity
.
•
questioned
psychiatrists
difference
of
approach
with
investigate
cultural
diagnosis
diagnosis”.
Aim
could
same
when
average
T
o
is
example,
line
two
not
basis
(1973)—sane
triggered
diagnostic
diagnosis
For
time.
Rosenhan
this
illness.
DSM
is
same
understanding
of
psychiatrists
mental
a
clinicians
RESEARCH
Results
the
bias.
C?
diagnosis.
making
observe
Essential
of
symptoms—some
and
incorrect,
✪
problem
between
different
classication
Assessment
disclosed
In
which
clinical
can
disorder
they
of
and
•
frequently
sources
symptoms.
the
•
to
causes
arrive
may
extent
will
clinicians
overlap,
the
than
by
etiology
.
of
results,
informed
seek
he
community
conducted
beforehand
admission
there.
was
that
In
highly
another
sceptical
study
with
pseudo-patients
fact,
Rosenhan
did
of
a
hospital
would
not
be
send
Procedure
anyone.
Eight
mentally
psychiatric
the
healthy
hospitals.
pseudo-patients
subjects
In
the
tried
interview
followed
a
to
gain
with
standard
admission
the
and
were
hearing
This
instructed
themselves
Upon
to
wrote
voices
the
that
only
answer
all
said
where
“empty”,
symptom
the
other
they
and
pseudo-patients
behaved
any
from
down
the
the
their
normally
.
symptoms
questions
hospital.
At
told
longer
the
up;
they
about
Results
showed
staff
they
sought
time,
•
they
to
did
be
secretly
a
When
It
out
of
eight
diagnosis
took
the
Unit
by
patients
of
discharged,
hospital
86
10-point
were
to
scale
be
a
with
each
new
pseudo-patient.
real
that
psychiatrists
patients
as
and
staff
pseudo-patients
members
quite
often
condently
.
Conclusion
concluded
distinguish
mental
the
validity
of
this
alarming
that
psychiatric
situation
once
someone
he
does
is
she
from
is
be
He
ability
a
the
by
the
that
effect
disorder
,
lens
to
questions
suggested
with
through
the
which
explained
labelled
interpreted
lacked
sanity
,
diagnoses.
could
labelling:
or
psychiatrists
disorders
of
of
everything
that
disorder
.
observations.
“schizophrenia
•
a
they
Notes
Seven
with
the
Rosenhan
Results
•
used
likely
they
simulating
the
and
same
how
“hollow”
made
stopped
They
any
rate
psychiatrist
script
honestly
.
experience
discharged
was
to
admission,
symptoms
not
of
“thud”.
members
patient
rated
complained
Staff
to
in
admitted
to
hospital
were
all
diagnosed
study).
with
biases.
remission”.
on
own
average
means
4—Abnormal
Rosenhan
19
provided
psychiatric
schizophrenia.
they
patients
their
were
days
(range
to
from
psychology
get
7
to
out
52
of
the
days).
The
the
diagnosis
study
rst
direct
(DSM-II
has
was
sparked
test
of
validity
used
at
the
extensive
of
time
research
of
into
the
clinical
4.1.4
The
Clinical
role
bias
in
clinical
diagnosis—a
SNOITINIFED
accuracy
in
patient’
s
behaviour;
clinician
of
diagnosis
variables
caused
clinical
and
systematic
by
deviation
misinterpretation
bias
patient
biases
may
be
diagnosis
from
of
associated
in
Patient
the
certain
with
may
variables—characteristics
groups
cause
attitudes
variables—professional
and
other
patients
in
cause
characteristics
systematic
background,
of
the
beliefs,
clinician
symptoms
deviation
syndrome—a
particular
culture
(that
set
of
does
the
behaviour
situation
of
that
bias—differential
of
mental
in
in
of
reporting
different
cultures
symptoms
of
mental
illness
diagnosis
symptoms
not
rates
disorders
that
in
Cultural
of
clinical
misdiagnosis
Somatization—expressing
may
the
variables
Reporting
Clinician
of
exist
specic
outside
of
to
the
form
of
physical
malfunction
a
that
culture)
ESSENTIAL
All
clinical
three
•
UNDERSTANDING
biases
in
diagnosis
may
be
broadly
divided
into
•
Patient
groups.
Clinician
may
variables
gender
,
variables
cause
“Clinician
(characteristics
certain
systematic
variables
in
of
the
biases
in
clinician
that
diagnosis).
See
race,
Sources
•
the
VARIABLES
bias
associated
clinician’
s
for
•
of
•
diagnosis”.
example,
the
in
for
✪
clinician
include:
and
as
•
Cultural
factors
clinician
and
the
demonstrated,
personal
Linden
tolerance
Langwieler
may
be
of
the
(1993)
for
clinician’
s
if
background
processes
biases
exist
when
and
Linden
(1993)—the
by
the
theoretical
participating
in
in
real-life
a
with
behaviour”
do
professional
decision-making
not
suspect
they
After
the
tape
clinicians
study
while
used
covert
with
a
in
result
different
from
the
cultural
factors
in
diagnosis”.
(such
conrmation
“Unit
on
as
2
Cognitive
cognitive
bias
approach
biases.
to
and
record
clinicians
the
to
orientation
the
whole
session
on
a
a
listened
researchers
the
interview.
recordings
content
to
and
Their
were
the
session
recalled
their
comments
transcribed
while
and
analysis.
Results
individual
keeping
the
combination
observation,
more
the
during
All
clinicians
arrived
conclusions.
on
age,
variables
recorder
.
study
submitted
study
.
focused
patient’
s
are
•
study
for
unannounced
listening
Method
The
biases
theoretical
concealed
•
clinicians’
medical
clinicians
“Cultural
cognitive
to
clinician’s
orientation
clinician.
associated
the
the
(which
having
correlation)—see
thoughts
out
to
“Patient
differences)
Aim
nd
diagnosis
patient
See
illusory
recording
T
o
in
the
or
ofce
inuenced
attitudes
See
perspective-taking,
understanding
Diagnosis
and
(such
uncertainty
,
RESEARCH
Essential
the
orientation—as
Langwieler
abilities
related
on).
DIAGNOSIS
with
theoretical
clinician’
s
tolerance
IN
so
diagnosis”.
backgrounds).
CLINICIAN
(biases
and
differences
patient
of
variables
qualitative
interviews
and
between
constant.
methods
content
some
The
including
analysis.
were
•
The
cases
For
and
not
investigated
initial
three
at
in
some
was
the
assessment
should
but
of
different
medication
prescribed
by
diagnosis
minutes)
slightly
example,
in
process
come
others.
clinicians
formed
rst
of
diagnostic
was
but
very
the
and
prescribed
Suicidal
not
early
in
thoughts
others.
(in
less
interview.
conclusions
In
than
theory
,
second,
Procedure
•
A
pseudo-patient
was
trained
and
presented
to
analysis
during
the
regular
working
hours.
pretended
was
to
was
work
designed
a
as
30-year-old
a
clerk;
according
to
the
female
story
DSM-III
physician
she
that
these
processes
appeared
to
be
interdependent:
an
initial
The
conclusion
pseudo-patient
revealed
four
actually
clinicians
transcripts
was
made
early
in
the
process
and
inuenced
who
the
subsequent
the
early
assessment
procedures.
In
all
cases
presented
symptoms
of
diagnosis
was
identical
to
the
nal
diagnostic
major
conclusion.
depressive
•
Four
disorder
clinicians
professional
training
consent
making
(MDD).
selected,
background
versus
to
were
behaviourist).
participate
where
(for
a
in
a
each
with
example,
All
study
pseudo-patient
of
a
them
on
different
psychoanalytic
gave
medical
would
informed
decision-
come
to
their
Conclusion
There
are
process
and
marked
carried
theoretical
individual
out
by
backgrounds.
contradicts
the
and
regarded
can
be
variations
clinicians
idea
of
a
as
of
This
the
diagnostic
professional
therapist
standardized
a
in
varying
individuality
diagnostic
process
bias.
Abnormal
psychology
87
PATIENT
Patient
of
variables
people
variables
•
VARIABLES
are
behave
may
related
take
many
bias—some
a
but
fail
See
RESEARCH
Essential
a
to
fact
some
groups
and
Furnham
different
process.
examples
experience
acknowledge
Furnham
that
diagnostic
them
Malik
and
groups
differences
may
in
inuence
the
the
•
Patient
and
Somatization—some
mental
follow.
disorder
symptoms
symptoms
report
of
is
to
to
especially
are
a
in
a
groups
physical
physician
prevalent
stigmatized.
See
in
experience
symptoms
form;
will
rather
than
societies
Lin,
they
Carter
a
mental
of
a
the
psychiatrist.
where
and
report
This
disorders
Kleinman
(1985)
(1994)
Malik
(1994)—reporting
understanding
Cultural
perceived
the
in
forms;
Reporting
disorder
DIAGNOSIS
to
differently
professionals.
✪
IN
bias
for
depression
in
British
Asians
Results
way
rate
mental
at
disorders
which
they
are
are
•
Perception
reported.
British
(but
of
depression
participants.
not
British
For
differed
among
example,
Asian
participants)
believed
can
by
Asian
and
participants
depression
is
Aim
temporary
T
o
investigate
cross-cultural
beliefs
about
and
be
xed
having
a
job
outside
depression.
the
•
home.
These
differences
were
less
pronounced
in
the
group
of
Background
younger
Statistically
British
Asians
(immigrants
from
Bangladesh,
India
•
and
Pakistan)
are
rarely
diagnosed
with
depression.
women.
Asian
middle-aged
signicantly
possible
but
fail
explanation
to
report
it
is
that
British
(reporting
Asians
have
women
reported
being
depressed
One
less
than
the
younger
group.
depression
bias).
Conclusion
Cultural
differences
exist
in
the
way
depression
is
attributed
to
Participants
perceived.
152
female
and
middle-aged
subjects
in
two
age
groups:
young
(aged
These
Half
of
the
participants
British,
educated
in
the
other
India,
half
Pakistan
were
or
Method
and
This
quasi-experiment.
was
a
questionnaires
their
beliefs
across
about
✪
(the
two
It
origin
(born
These
of
lled
were
culture
Carter
and
out
mental
Responses
were
and
may
of
be
patients
mental
are
societies
tend
less
illness
and
compared
cultural
disorders
to
from
certain
accurately
(such
as
individualism
differences
reported:
to
report
differences,
reporting
inuence
people
depression
younger
rates
at
traditional
more
Globalization
with
the
from
to
which
collectivistic
relatives
gradually
erases
generations
and
these
having
less
bias.
age).
Kleinman
among
dimensions
professionals.
cultural
(1985)—somatization
which
prevalent
cultural
collectivism).
and
understanding
prevents
symptoms
symptoms
IVs
Lin,
Somatization
groups.
their
Participants
depression.
RESEARCH
Essential
Asian
Bangladesh).
procedure
about
groups
of
be
were
versus
Native
may
17–28)
underlying
(35–62).
differences
was
absence
social
refugees
dened
of
compared
reporting
in
a
clear
across
as
vague
etiology
.
and
immigrants
somatic
Rates
of
symptoms
in
somatization
the
were
groups.
illness.
Results
Aim
T
o
determine
the
presence
of
somatization
in
certain
cultural
•
Somatization
•
Refugees
diagnosed
more
likely
in
to
35%
have
of
patients.
somatization
than
immigrants.
groups.
•
Method
Analysis
was
were
of
clinical
pre-existing
record;
quasi-experiment
(comparison
of
groups).
•
Patients
with
from
a
sizes
and
somatization
“traditional”
Patients
lower
with
procient
in
were
more
background
levels
of
likely
(with
to
larger
come
household
education).
somatization
were
more
likely
to
be
less
English.
Participants
Chinese,
Filipino,
undergoing
were
war
refugees
in
(they
Vietnam).
conscious
Vietnamese
treatment
had
The
decision
in
to
US
been
other
and
Laotian
hospitals.
forced
half
were
patients
Half
to
of
move
the
due
immigrants
that
were
patients
to
(it
the
was
their
emigrate).
Conclusion
Somatization
as
Asian
societies
more
to
is
prevalent
refugees
(where
prone
to
and
among
mental
disorders
somatization.
somatization,
probably
The
researchers
primary
88
care.
Unit
analysed
They
were
clinical
looking
4—Abnormal
records
for
of
signs
psychology
patients
of
in
US
somatization,
and
acculturation.
to
social
People
tend
Refugee
due
Procedure
relocation
certain
immigrants.
the
to
groups,
from
be
status
added
such
traditional
stigmatized)
also
are
contributes
stress
of
forced
CULTURAL
FACTORS
IN
DIAGNOSIS
•
Cultural
in
its
dimensions
fourth
interview”
started
edition.
in
syndromes”
an
It
included
appendix
(later
making
and
renamed
a
a
as
their
way
“cultural
glossary
“cultural
into
the
Shenjing
shuairuo
fatigue,
anxiety
,
of
was
given
to
cultural
syndromes”).
variables
This
is
a
diagnosis
and
it
may
in
syndromes”
as
illness
are
in
a
sets
of
symptoms
particular
be
may
Some
only
exist
examples
of
in
a
culture.
given
cultural
that
In
are
fact,
Ataque
de
nervios
mostly
(“attack
among
culture
and
syndromes
of
Hispanic
the
screaming,
trembling
Taijin
kyofusho
the
reaction
4.2
to
It
be
a
is
a
of
Prevalence
Bereavement
SNOITINIFED
DSM-IV
the
and
partial
symptoms
signicant
condition
loss,
was
acceptable
loss
age
that
occur
such
less
as
than
the
in
and
condition
depression
removed
individuals
the
is
of
a
this
in
a
a
disorder
purpose
prevalence)
form
is
important
their
for
in
a
are
and
that
cannot
two
death
loss
of
a
syndrome
cultures.
It
specic
involves
to
a
the
fear
Japanese
of
relationships
will
not
be
based
pleased
on
an
about
irrational
one’
s
belief
physical
or
body
odour.
for
clinicians
awareness
to
be
about
trained
cultural
in
a
way
that
syndromes.
of
existed
be
weeks
a
close
disorders
in
Period
diagnosed
after
given
prevalence—the
population
a
interval;
person
(this
lifetime
who
have
typically
the
used
proportion
disorder
periods
are
of
people
within
a
in
given
12-month
a
given
time
prevalence,
prevalence
DSM-5)
disorder—the
average
population
practical
reasons
population.
prevalence
onset
depressive
World
the
as
psychology
are
rst
age
when
prevalence
people
diagnosed
with
the
in
a
given
of
a
disorder—the
population
currently
proportion
diagnosed
of
with
disorder
age
The
rate
(see
to
characterize
main
(point
the
parameters
prevalence
spread
used
and
for
period
“Denitions”).
It
disorder
(MDD)
has
high
prevalence
is
not
easy
variations
of
to
Health
second
Organization
leading
cause
of
(WHO)
forecasts
disability
in
the
•
the
•
reporting
classication
cultural
rates
of
MDD
vary
across
cultures.
The
by
2020.
Since
we
estimates
in
the
are
world.
found
sociodemographic
substantially
across
At
the
in
some
correlates
cultures.
same
of
of
See
time,
the
major
age
and
from
use
variations
in
the
inuencing
expression
prevalence
of
symptoms—see
rate
estimates”.
can
only
establish
and
our
prevalence
estimates
rates
are
of
disorders
inuenced
used
classication
system
and
a
variety
of
by
the
clinical
wealthiest
of
depression
Kessler
in
disorders
highest
biases,
countries
system
of
with:
bias
estimates,
currently
prevalence
prevalence
to
through
Prevalence
true
associated
rates.
depression
world
separate
estimates
“Factors
be
syndrome
of
•
The
this
UNDERSTANDING
important
Major
describes
disorder
ESSENTIAL
It
of
China),
depression.
of
Point
Onset
of
include
abnormal
rates
exclusion—a
stated
form
syndrome
Symptoms
and
culturally
(especially
stress.
Etiology
4.2.1
if
may
extreme
is
Korean
others
increases
consciousness.
Asia
nowhere
It
uncontrollable
to
accepted
follow.
nerves”)
people.
specic
culturally
only
appearance
found
of
weakness.
these
that
•
a
medicine
interpersonal
else.
symptoms
general
energy
.
and
symptoms
and
More
•
recognized
includes
mood
DSM-5.
vital
“Cultural
depressed
“culture-bound
T
raditional
attention
(neurasthenia)
DSM
formulation
onset
do
not
Bromet
the
topics
“4.1.2
Classication
systems”
and
“4.1.4
and
The
role
of
clinical
part
of
discussion
biases
in
diagnosis”
are
an
indispensable
vary
a
of
prevalence
rates
of
disorders.
(2013).
Abnormal
psychology
89
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
other
data
indicates
variability
in
parameters
correlates
and
Bromet
(2013)—cross-national
•
understanding
Available
cultural
Kessler
are
that
prevalence
such
found
as
to
onset
be
there
of
considerable
depression.
age
quite
is
and
The
similar
However
,
across
age
cultures.
of
(25.7
•
in
versus
of
depression
across
on
the
income
24
the
and
years,
is
of
hand,
depression
does
median
not
age
low-middle
of
vary
onset
income
is
countries
respectively).
correlates
cultures.
MDD
rates
other
example,
across
developing
prevalence
For
Sociodemographic
Aim
compare
prevalence
onset,
high
consistent
T
o
of
substantially
.
cross-
sociodemographic
consistent
study
of
For
typically
depression
example,
twice
that
are
also
women’
s
of
fairly
risk
for
men.
cultures.
Conclusion
Method
Review
of
Prevalence
publications
(epidemiological
containing
epidemiological
data
This
surveys).
may
rates
be
classication
symptoms,
of
due
MDD
to
a
system
vary
variety
in
use,
considerably
across
of
factors
including
the
survey
used
representativeness
of
samples
to
cultures.
the
establish
used
in
the
research,
Results
as
•
MDD
is
where
•
a
from
The
1%
obscured
only
•
to
(and
by
a
arrive
affected
surveys
estimates
Republic)
prevalence
to
10%
by
understand
mental
variety
at
the
independent
in
to
in
all
carried
MDD
16.9%
The
out.
ranged
widely
the
the
estimates
of
in
the
the
from
0.3%
that
factors.
and
this
true
in
In
RATE
prevalence
general)
may
of
estimates
•
removed,
potentially
may
is
no
surveys
may
be
is
•
of
diagnosis
system,
manual
prevalence
making
report
will
and
be
disorders.
exclusion
for
the
diagnosis
if
any
increasing
the
regulation
in
to
bias
SNOITINIFED
of
this
in
sense
may
The
in
some
authors
inequality
,
but
of
suggest
this
requires
in
example,
of
their
do
in
report
the
populations
because
may
mental
fail
illness
society
.
the
differently
on
some
depression
expression
their
in
the
training
of
symptoms—
symptoms,
of
clinical
the
they
may
situation,
psychiatrist)
which
may
lead
diagnosis.
the
linked
to
topic
two
“Prevalence
other
rates
sections:
and
“4.1.2
disorders”
is
Classication
inclusive
of
and
“4.1.4
The
role
of
clinical
biases
in
diagnosing
for
disorders:
to
Relevant
answer
material
questions
Biological
of
transporter
reuptake
of
gene:
a
gene
serotonin
at
involved
brain
in
synapses
from
these
sections
about
prevalence
of
can
be
disorders.
explanations
Gene-environment
individuals
a
disorder—a
set
of
factors
that
caused
distinguish
between
biological,
cognitive
interaction
different
environment
in
(G
×
genotypes
different
ways;
E)—the
will
for
react
idea
to
example,
that
the
may
have
a
genetic
predisposition
to
some
depression
and
that
sociocultural
having
it;
people
we
income
found
example,
same
Etiology
are
world.
depression
5-HTT—serotonin
the
the
depression.
Explanations
for
in
depression
more
frequency
them
(depending
reected
For
bias—for
symptoms
people
present
used
4.2.2
to
variations
diagnosis”.
with
due
stigmatized
Cultural
systems”
people
estimates
countries
be
Reporting
to
closely
and
prevalence
ESTIMATES
be
epidemiological
these
classication
bereavement
was
prevalence.
exploration.
even
diagnostic
the
true
highest
further
In
DSM-5
as
wealthiest
that
(USA).
ranged
PREVALENCE
system—there
of
well
countries
following.
Classication
changes
of
were
for
estimates
disorders
estimates,
disorder
(USA).
INFLUENCING
important
depression
we
(Czech
Republic)
FACTORS
is
prevalence
12-month
(Czech
It
occurring
epidemiological
Lifetime
•
commonly
will
make
them
more
vulnerable
to
stressful
life
etiologies
events
Gene-environment
correlation
(rGE)—the
idea
that
Selective
genetic
predisposition
can
inuence
the
class
itself
and
so,
when
viewed
in
development,
not
completely
independent
of
of
drugs
excess
Unit
4—Abnormal
psychology
reuptake
act
serotonin
genotype
concentration
90
that
by
inhibitors
preventing
the
(SSRIs)—a
reuptake
environment
of
is
serotonin
environment
in
the
synapse,
increasing
its
ESSENTIAL
Biological
and
UNDERSTANDING
explanations
neurochemistry
for
depression
include
(neurotransmitters
and
genetic
factors
more
hormones).
vulnerable
occur
,
they
are
depression.
Genetic
Research
into
genetic
etiology
of
depression
uses
approaches
as
genetic
research
elsewhere
we
Genetic
heritability
of
depression
directly
obtained
in
adoption
studies
but
it
can
be
estimated
from
of
such
methods
and
as
twin
molecular
twin
studies,
to
the
estimate
studies,
Falconer
model
heritability
.
specic
gene
gene
specic
to
stressful
molecular
family
in
life
genetic
approach
to
how
this
See
has
been
“1.3.1
similarities”
heritability
(A
in
“Unit
1
Kendler
of
et
depression
=
42%)
than
contributions
did
not
al
(2006)
individuals
change
et
al
was
signicantly
in
men
(A
=
29%),
to
the
variable
of
genetic
and
to
In
other
from
to
depression,
generation
Silberg
study
al
that
but
✪
In
major
twin
(1999)
genetic
same
and
to
Caspi
life
et
events
al
will
inuence
(2003)
correlation
interaction
(G
may
will
create
create
depend
this
such
highlight
same
the
×
E)
describes
genetic
environment.
environment
correlation
evocative
other
gene-environment
environmental
not
See
rGE
and
the
situation
predispositions
However
,
itself.
(rGE).
active
There
rGE
This
are
(also
“Gene-environment
a
react
genetics
is
known
as
can
gene-
three
types:
known
as
passive
niche
correlation”.
interactions,
will
one
research
be
certain
needs
to
studies.
et
the
a
al
in
estimates
the
most
the
role
the
on
treatment
drugs
as
that
SSRIs)
“4.3.2
inuential
of
“serotonin
in
of
be
theories
hypothesis”.
depression
the
level
effective
Biological
linked
for
treatment
It
is
See
that
it
role
linked
implies
serotonin
reduction
of
in
“The
closely
because
of
to
neurotransmitters,
neurotransmitters
depression”.
increase
can
evolution,
genetics
are
of
in
the
of
to
that
brain
symptoms.
depression”.
girls
to
be
(2006)—the
Swedish
national
twin
study
of
depression
Results
at
model,
38%
heritability
are
of
than
disorders
longitudinal
causes
Falconer
estimated
(such
See
in
One
is
other
mental
explanations:
neurotransmitters
environmental
for
describes
depression
predisposition
on
biological
currently
inuences.
explanations
explanations
hormones.
a
predisposition
predisposition
using
is
different
generation.
women
may
demonstrated
differences
the
functional
that
understanding
studies
sex
time
stressful
See
with
the
inuence
Genetic
and
Genes
Kendler
depression
notable
it
or
uncover
RESEARCH
Essential
E).
longitudinal
et
men
considering
×
genes
whether
T
o
in
certain
words,
conduct
•
of
(G
susceptibility
triggered.
a
gene)
environmental
interaction
results
importance
interactions
factors
that
transporter
higher
Biological
These
this
using
(2006)
Gene-environment
•
for
(2003),
demonstrated
picking).
Kendler
al
and
rGE,
factors
et
Biological
environment
relative
responsible
behaviour”.
approach,
women
See
with
traditionally
Genes
also
the
is
Caspi
suggested
(serotonin
strongly
symptoms.
differently
in
events
studies,
when
Using
that
events?
genetics,
5-HTT
Gene-environment
that
these
respond
(1999)
a
Gene-environment
behaviour,
•
al
If
to
genetics.
depressive
In
et
boys
data
determines
used
events.
in
polymorphism
•
Silberg
life
than
cannot
methods
measured
a
pinpoint
vulnerability
psychology
.
be
See
likely
the
Can
same
stressful
factors
Pinpointing
•
to
more
stable
on
of
heritability
average.
There
depression.
across
of
At
•
Prior
are
the
generations.
•
studies
(meta-analyses)
depression
showed
heritability
of
The
depression
estimated
entire
quite
sample
at
heritability
in
Kendler
of
genetic
similar
37%
of
et
on
major
al
heritability
results,
of
estimating
average.
depression
(2006)
was
for
the
38%—very
Aim
similar
T
o
compare
genetic
heritability
of
major
depression
in
•
and
women
as
well
as
across
historical
to
prior
results.
men
No
evidence
was
found
that
shared
environment
was
cohorts.
of
any
importance
=
as
depression
(C
Heritability
estimates
a
factor
of
developing
major
0%).
Participants
•
42,161
twins
located
through
the
national
Swedish
E
Registry
.
in
the
This
is
country
.
enabled
a
nearly
Birth
researchers
complete
cohorts
to
registration
spanned
compare
nearly
results
of
60
across
all
for
men
were:
A
=
29%,
were:
A
=
T
win
twin
years,
(individual
environment)
=
71%.
births
•
Heritability
•
These
estimates
for
women
42%,
E
=58%.
which
estimates
did
not
differ
signicantly
across
age
generations.
cohorts.
Method
Conclusion
T
o
assess
lifetime
major
depression,
a
personal
computerThe
assisted
telephone
interview
was
conducted
with
researchers
moderately
participants
using
modied
DSM-IV
Men
T
rained
collected
a
pair
for
verbal
consent
interviewers
data.
within
Efforts
one
was
with
were
month.
obtained
adequate
made
that
major
depression
was
heritable.
criteria.
Procedure
Informed
concluded
all
prior
medical
to
reach
to
the
interview.
background
both
members
women
interpreting
in
of
and
depression.
constant
suggest,
in
Such
genes
(during
this
to
different
nding
interaction.
genes
response
have
However
,
may
that
For
exist
variations
would
menstrual
we
increase
cycles
genes
and
as
increase
the
the
and
of
genetic
remember
example,
that
in
rates
should
environment
the
the
hormonal
risk
of
susceptibility
when
risk
of
depression
environment.
depression
pregnancy)
are
researchers
but
Abnormal
not
in
in
women
men.
psychology
91
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
boys.
(G
×
This
E)
predisposition
to
is
certain
an
al
(1999)—genetic
vulnerability
is
an
makes
stressful
example
because
requires
et
understanding
Genetic
vulnerable
Silberg
of
genotype
life
events
girls
than
creates
event
to
be
a
•
administered
A
list
of
39
created.
interaction
predisposition
stressful
to
life
both
events
twins
in
adolescents
at
least
and
one
of
the
parents.
more
adolescent
gene-environment
only
environmental
adolescent
to
or
that
losing
for
triggered.
potentially
These
a
these
stressful
included
close
events
friend
were
such
past-year
events
through
as
life
arguments.
obtained
in
events
failing
a
was
grade
Ratings
interviews
with
the
mothers.
Aim
T
o
investigate
what
of
depression
in
investigate
boys
and
the
girls
causes
males
the
and
development
from
differences
females.
of
childhood
With
in
depressive
to
Results
heritability
this
end,
•
to
symptoms
The
among
Boys
the
Participants
data
used
was
taken
Adolescent
Behavioural
wave
of
study
twin
pairs
time
of
more
who
the
than
were
rst
from
the
Virginia
Development—a
1,400
between
8
male
and
16
T
win
Study
longitudinal
and
female
years
events
in
of
•
at
of
Analysis
impact
on
associated
girls.
have
12,
parents
similar
and
levels
girls’
rates
faster
after
that
that
during
after
failing
a
were
increased
grade.
depression
depression
before
increase
age.
life
symptoms
and
depression
included
of
of
stressful
depressive
with
Examples
but
showed
especially
the
and
between
girls
signicantly
of
four-
juvenile
age
and
age
most
boys
quarrelling
adolescence.
•
The
life
similar
events
of
girls
had
than
a
greater
boys,
puberty
.
assessment.
Conclusion
The
Method
A
longitudinal
twin
in
study
.
Procedure
•
Depressive
and
symptoms
Adolescent
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
A
Caspi
assessed
using
Interview.
et
al
This
the
Child
(2003)—the
of
life
in
events
5-HTT
on
moderates
in
the
depression
polymorphisms
in
relationship
individuals
the
the
•
depression.
(alleles)
of
between
with
the
stressful
different
5-HTT
life
to
words,
them
events
more
on
than
depressive
in
boys.
experiencing
girls
have
a
vulnerable
suggests
particular
genetic
to
symptoms
This
a
stressful
life
predisposition
stressful
life
events,
at
adolescence.
26th
twice
events
an
were
combined
you
age
21
assessed
interview
nominated
functional
at
and
25
(immediately
before
birthday).
Participants
was
investigate
life
stronger
gene
Aim
and
other
makes
with
T
o
is
In
participants
polymorphism
stressful
girls
events.
least
5-HTT
negative
predisposition
that
interview
of
genetic
understanding
functional
inuence
were
Psychiatric
effect
adolescent
by
based
with
each
for
on
past-year
DSM-IV
informant
reports
participant
as
depression
criteria.
from
This
persons
“someone
who
knows
well”.
gene.
Results
Participants
A
•
representative
birth
cohort
of
1,037
children
from
There
New
the
Zealand.
•
were
no
number
However
,
allele
of
it
differences
of
stressful
was
5-HTT
found
(s/l
and
between
life
events
that
the
they
three
participants
especially
s/s)
groups
in
experienced.
with
reacted
a
short
to
stressful
Method
life
A
longitudinal
study
.
Quasi-experimental
events
with
was
divided
into
three
who
both
•
one
short
alleles
of
5-HTT
allele
and
one
long
allele
both
long
alleles
had
life
stressful
event
at
example,
age
an
increase
in
their
depressive
21
symptoms
age
26,
but
only
if
they
carried
a
short
allele
of
(s/l)—51%
5-HTT
•
a
For
(s/s)—17%
by
short
symptoms.
groups:
demonstrated
•
depressive
comparisons—the
participants
sample
more
(s/l
or
s/s).
Conversely
,
depressive
symptoms
of
(l/l)—31%.
participants
in
the
l/l
group
stayed
on
the
same
level.
Procedure
Conclusion
•
Participants
were
followed
longitudinally
and
assessed
at
The
ages
3,
5,
7,
9,
11,
13,
15,
18,
21,
researchers
exposure
•
A
“life
history
calendar”
was
used
to
assess
stressful
It
health,
relationship
included
14
major
events
(such
as
and
was
administered
to
4—Abnormal
psychology
these
events.
predisposition
stressful
interaction
Unit
life
that
events,
5-HTT
but
does
not
inuences
inuence
an
The
study
demonstrated
individual’
s
that
can
moderate
a
person’
s
reactivity
to
to
92
stressful
employment,
genetic
stressors)
to
life
reaction
events.
concluded
25.
life
(G
events—an
×
E).
instance
of
gene-environment
THEORY
GENE-ENVIRONMENT
Gene-environment
when
individuals
differently
complex,
genetics
as
to
interaction
with
the
inuence
×
E)
the
if
we
The
look
reality
at
(rGE),
the
situation
predispositions
environment
correlation
(RGE)
describes
genetic
environment.
because
gene-environment
(G
different
same
however
,
can
CORRELATION
it
is
a
react
more
This
dynamically
,
itself.
and
This
there
is
the
known
are
three
•
lack
child
rGE—this
both
the
is
when
genes
environment,
so
independent.
For
and
genes
parents
some
and
example,
pass
on
to
the
Active
that
corresponding
environment
parents
may
are
not
entirely
the
child
predisposition
to
depression
as
well
as
a
of
•
evokes
a
ROLE
There
have
establish
rGE—this
particular
OF
places
the
child
a
role
of
inuential
known
as
in
a
person’
s
rGE
an
constantly
gloomy
,
with
him
interaction
may
in
that
further
or
so
her
.
turn
become
contributes
to
the
(also
known
individual
match
a
child
of
as
niche-picking)—this
actively
his
or
selects
her
genetic
predisposed
situations
to
is
environments
predisposition.
depression
where
gene-environment
certain
it
is
may
hard
correlations
is
to
a
For
seek
succeed.
challenge
to
highly
under
a
research
because
it
is
not
easy
to
study
them
in
all
lot
their
complexity
.
with
large
Study
of
research
studies
symptoms
in
that
were
brain
is
is
a
“serotonin
said
in
to
in
that
IN
of
the
them
requires
hypothesis
has
been
tried
•
idea
drugs
serotonin
by
•
that
the
Certain
of
its
drugs
serotonin
symptoms
is
known
were
evidence
of
that
in
were
the
as
that
in
of
longitudinal
statistical
research
modelling.
were
known
brain
were
depression.
to
be
reuptake
to
deplete
also
found
levels
to
have
effects.
were
the
selective
shown
known
brain
depression-inducing
Among
depression
Certain
of
depression,
the
causes
to
by
hypothesis”.
supported
sophisticated
example,
varying
brain.
and
and
DEPRESSION
that
with
inuence
serotonin,
factor
For
depression
clients
samples
prevent
This
be
genotype
response.
neurotransmitters
candidate
the
the
when
neurotransmitters
neurotransmitters
imbalance
variety
of
depressive
concentrations
is
environmental
NEUROTRANSMITTERS
been
the
comparing
most
that
factor
may
interacting
stress.
Evocative
THE
environment
stop
interpersonal
high-demanding
current
demanding
may
depression.
better
Existence
genetic
of
example,
give
depression
work
environmental
when
Passive
with
at
person’
s
types.
•
person
people
to
increase
also
found
the
to
levels
relieve
For
example,
a
serotonin
reuptake
inhibitors
effective
of
excess
against
class
of
depression.
serotonin
from
the
drugs
(SSRIs)
SSRIs
synapse,
two
increasing
its
concentration
in
the
synaptic
gap.
types.
For
some
of
treatment
4.2.3
Explanations
for
ESSENTIAL
As
of
in
any
disorders:
research
studies
see
“4.3.2
Biological
depression”.
Cognitive
explanations
depression
UNDERSTANDING
other
depression
for
these
of
aspect
interact
of
human
with
behaviour
,
cognitive
and
biological
factors
•
sociocultural
Alloy
,
Abramson
negative
factors.
depression.
•
Caseras
and
cognitive
et
See
al
Francis
styles
Alloy,
(2007)
(1999)
predict
the
Abramson
showed
that
demonstrated
development
and
Francis
individuals
that
of
(1999).
suffering
Theory
from
Cognitive
explanations
for
depression
suggest
that
depression
Caseras
patterns
of
information
processing
(how
an
various
life
events)
inuence
the
et
the
disorder
.
of
the
See
the
most
inuential
of
(Beck
attention
biases.
See
empirical
for
studies
depression
that
have
support
focused
on
cognitive
their
cognitive
correlational
explanations
negative
(2007).
development
explanations
of
al
individual
Criticism
interprets
exhibit
the
nature:
it
is
difcult
to
separate
thinking
that
1967).
causes
depression
from
thinking
that
is
caused
area
of
by
depression.
Research
However
,
The
core
premise
of
the
theory—the
idea
that
depression
the
linked
to
faulty
thinking
patterns—is
supported
by
major
studies
of
Here
are
two
cognitive
for
this
behavioural
research
therapy
comes
(CBT)
and
from
its
empirical
effectiveness
research.
support
is
compared
to
other
methods
of
treatment.
See
examples.
“4.3.3
Psychological
treatment
of
depression”.
Abnormal
psychology
93
THEORY
BECK
This
(1967)—COGNITIVE
theory
cause
of
automatic
that
that
daily
change
It
cognitive
highlights
thoughts—the
naturally
their
a
suggests
depression.
occurs
activities.
in
THEORY
in
The
automatic
factors
the
central
minds
claim
thoughts
can
DEPRESSION
are
the
importance
semi-conscious
people’
s
OF
to
of
major
of
sub-vocal
narrative
•
lead
theory
to
a
fault
they
cannot
Faulty
accompany
the
own
that
they
behaviour
.
The
theory
identies
three
that
happens
to
them,
even
if
it.
patterns:
conclusions
process
these
that
information
are
people
is
logical
make
fallacies
because
and
the
way
biased.
change
Cognitive
in
everything
control
thinking
irrational
is
in
elements
theory
of
depression
forms
the
basis
of
cognitive
of
behavioural
therapy
(CBT).
The
core
idea
of
this
approach
depression
to
•
The
cognitive
triad:
negative
beliefs
about
the
self,
treatment
patterns
world
and
the
future—these
negative
beliefs
are
and
they
inuence
automatic
thoughts
to
irrational
turn
Negative
when
generalized,
RESEARCH
negative
beliefs
about
depression
people
(Alloy
,
Alloy
,
cognitive
when
researchers
the
faulty
thinking
situation
more
logical
will
thinking,
replace
which
CBT
is
an
inuential
approach
will
to
See
more
individuals
start
Abramson
seeing
and
people
dene
typically
styles
Francis
confront
cognitive
interpret
Abramson,
or
Francis
vulnerability
stressful
styles
broadly
understand
life
as
(1999)—
negative
events
events.
in
risk
to
“the
its
treatment
effectiveness
of
in
the
section
“4.3.3
depression”.
their
split
increase
on
the
understanding
Negative
✪
client’
s
of
pessimistic.
self-schemata:
become
Essential
the
reality
with
behaviour
.
Psychological
self
confronting
objective
elements
affect
treatment.
•
that
the
be
in
irrationally
with
deeply
the
rooted
is
the
style
The
that
way
their
into
for
lives”
groups
depression.
(allocated
negative
occurrence
were
1999).
two
cognitive
of
awed
Participants
to
life
based
on
results:
Participants
the
high-risk
events
such
or
style
were
events
with
a
group)
low
risk
typically
catastrophic
meant
that
versus
negative
believed
and
they
high
cognitive
that
(the
the
participants)
worthless.
were
then
followed
longitudinally
for
5.5
years.
Aim
Assessments
T
o
investigate
or
negative)
whether
a
particular
cognitive
style
included
self-report
measures
and
structured
(positive
interviews.
in
development
freshmen
of
is
depressive
associated
with
subsequent
symptoms.
Results
•
During
the
rst
2.5
years
of
follow-up,
high-risk
Method
freshmen
Quasi-experiment
(comparison
of
two
pre-existing
Non-depressed
college
of
the
that
study
,
Major
from
Caseras
their
et
were
given
cognitive
al
Negative
a
style
major
and
(2007)—attention
people
negative
low-risk
freshmen
to
freshmen
were
develop
versus
(17%
depressive
versus
also
suicidal
more
likely
1%).
thoughts
than
and
low-risk
behaviour
13%).
is
nd
associated
it
cognitive
styles
may
inuence
the
development
of
depression.
harder
with
to
biased
disengage
attention—
their
•
Depressive
symptoms
questionnaire
attention
basis
stimuli.
of
the
(the
were
Beck
scores,
groups—those
assessed
Depression
participants
with
depressive
using
a
Inventory).
were
On
the
split
into
two
symptoms
and
non-
depressed.
investigate
stimuli
major
Procedure
Aim
T
o
develop
bias
understanding
depression
depressed
participants
determined
RESEARCH
✪
to
Conclusion
questionnaire
Essential
High-risk
(28%
freshmen.
Procedure
start
than
freshmen
Participants
the
likely
study
.
•
At
more
groups);
disorder
longitudinal
were
is
whether
different
in
attention
depressed
to
positive
versus
versus
negative
non-depressed
participants.
•
Participants
negative,
was
were
positive
presented
presented
shown
and
for
images
three
of
a
series
neutral
of
seconds.
sadness
32
stimuli.
and
picture
Each
The
pairs
pair
of
negative
loss,
with
pictures
pictures
whereas
the
Method
positive
Quasi-experiment
(comparison
of
two
pre-existing
pictures
technology
was
used
to
measure
the
people
Using
o
initial
two
eye-tracking
components
technology
,
orienting
(which
of
of
visual
the
Participants
participant
94
participants
Unit
recruited
through
4—Abnormal
a
university
psychology
in
enjoyable
researchers
variables.
measured
43
engaging
groups);
activities.
eye-tracking
showed
website.
looks
at
initially)
attention:
two
pictures
the
o
maintenance
this
picture
of
attention
before
(the
switching
duration
to
the
of
other
looking
at
•
In
other
looking
one).
switch
words,
at
a
their
once
depressed
negative
picture,
attention
to
the
participants
they
found
other
it
started
harder
to
picture.
Results
•
Participants
bias
in
but
no
4.2.4
with
differences
ESSENTIAL
Sociocultural
susceptibility
Social
explanations
to
classic
in
are
initial
for
depression
may
Conclusion
a
pictures—
orienting.
disorders:
Negative
attention
of
depression.
major
increase
focus
an
on
structure
individual’
s
in
Brown
that
having
were
with
involved
example,
may
three
lack
and
of
Harris
increase
or
more
to
the
supported
in
overall
the
development
other
conclusion
of
risk
such
religious
person,
as
early
al
loss
activities
See
Kivelä
(1996)
of
a
predict
Spreading
Apart
also
from
of
et
and
loss
of
investigate
Essential
Social
old
of
the
mechanisms
how
along
that
parent
or
onset
social
lack
of
of
people
up
Rosenquist,
to
major
may
three
Fowler
nding
spread
from
degrees
of
and
this
is
sense
not
certainly
development
For
probably
a
example,
factor
play
and
an
and
may
either
important
in
depression
etiology
,
and
moderating
role
both
depressive
symptoms.
certain
traditional
societies
to
people
report
to
misinterpret
them
in
cultural
of
cause
fail
cause
depression
expression
depression
which
cannot
of
(reporting
is
their
them
as
symptoms
of
physical
illness
bias)
or
(somatization).
participation
depression
in
the
social
vulnerability
may
Kivelä
al
a
The
in
“4.1.4
The
role
of
clinical
biases
in
diagnosis”
for
elderly
on
reporting
bias
and
somatization.
(1996)
depression
play
network.
depression
social
et
be
network
factors,
affected
researchers
by
the
(1996)—social
predictors
•
understanding
factors
of
culture
culture
in
social
depression
of
variables
independent
that
demonstrated
the
symptoms
RESEARCH
✪
al
identifying
affecting
See
Although
stigmatized,
et
social
symptoms
(2011)
more
people.
one
explanations
individual’
s
that
Christakis
Effects
of
lack
factors.
Kivelä
an
is
away
.
See
in
is
(1978)
children,
employment
the
in
of
area
separation
report
factors
potentially
factors
factors
claims
this
symptoms
For
bias
Sociocultural
person
study
,
relationship,
studies,
personal
for
that
depression:
These
research
factors
found
demonstrated
negative
depression.
vulnerability
intimate
mother
.
with
factors
vulnerability
developing
an
were
to
depression
inuential
outlined
of
symptoms
attention
UNDERSTANDING
environmental
an
of
Explanations
for
In
depressive
maintenance
role
in
the
etiology
of
depression
of
depression
T
wo
groups
depressed
in
in
were
in
elderly
people
compared:
depressed
versus
non-
1989–90.
age.
Results
•
Aim
T
o
investigate
(in
various
social
elderly
Finnish
a
longitudinal
factors
predict
study)
the
occurrence
extent
of
to
which
depression
in
an
•
study;
1989–90,
the
quasi-experimental
comparison
of
two
of
were
with
powerful
the
men
diagnosed
of
the
spouse;
relationship
with
the
spouse
loss
of
mother
alcohol
while
divorce;
problem
of
a
a
and
close
men
with
20
into
of
the
women
depression.
revealed
in
negative
under
moving
9.3%
depression
with
grandchild’
s
and
with
non-depressed
predictors
relationship
the
groups.
8.2%
sample
Comparison
most
population.
Method
Longitudinal
In
in
poor
change
the
years
the
men:
in
the
neighbours;
of
age;
institutional
a
care;
an
person.
Procedure
•
•
A
clinical
study
of
depression
in
old
age
was
The
most
were:
in
Finland
in
1984–85
with
1,529
participants
aged
61
the
DSM-III
was
used
to
determine
the
occurrence
loss
of
predictors
father
while
of
depression
under
20
in
years
women
of
age;
low
or
activity
older
.
powerful
completed
in
religious
events;
worsening
of
relationships
with
of
neighbours;
a
decline
in
the
follow-up
period;
an
social
participation
rate
during
depression.
the
•
Those
participants
who
were
not
depressed
in
living
were
clinically
follow-up
•
Social
interviewed
study
variables
events
in
the
in
and
period
questionnaires.
and
1989–90
the
(N
examined
=
1984–89
again
in
were
of
certain
measured
with
one’
s
husband
but
problem
without
of
other
a
close
person;
people.
a
679).
occurrence
alcohol
1984–85
Conclusion
life
through
Social
factors
of
depression
in
the
social
associated
and
at
changes
old
factors
with
age.
of
in
social
There
are
depression
differences
in
ties
may
certain
in
old
predict
sex
age,
experiencing
Abnormal
the
onset
differences
probably
marital
stress.
psychology
95
RESEARCH
Rosenquist,
Fowler
and
Christakis
(2011)—symptoms
of
depression
in
the
social
network
Essential
✪
person,
individual
understanding
Symptoms
of
depression
affecting
people
may
up
to
spread
three
from
degrees
person
of
separation
•
Data
was
network
away.
investigate
person
to
if
depressive
person
(like
an
symptoms
infectious
can
spread
There
from
was
between
disease).
as
friends,
relatives,
neighbours
and
analysed
using
statistical
methods
of
social
analysis.
a
Method
Statistical
•
analysis
of
social
networks,
longitudinal
93%
data.
and
43%
was
taken
to
correlation
three
likely
to
connected
in
depressive
degrees
of
symptoms
separation
away
.
more
likely
be
to
to
depressed
(such
be
as
a
if
a
person
friend)
depressed
if
a
was
they
were
depressed
person
within
two
procedure
degrees
Data
up
were:
more
directly
•
Participants
signicant
people
Participants
•
well
Results
Aim
T
o
as
co-workers.
to
from
an
earlier
Framingham
Heart
of
separation
(such
as
a
friend’
s
friend)
was
Study
,
depressed
a
longitudinal
study
of
risk
factors
for
heart
disease
•
initiated
in
1948
and
involving
12,067
participants.
37%
more
degrees
keep
track
of
participants,
the
researchers
later:
that
names
relatives.
these
of
Since
would
their
help
friends,
Framingham
nominated
them
contacts
locate
also
a
small
to
be
separation
depressed
(such
as
a
if
a
person
friend’
s
within
friend’
s
three
friend)
depressed.
participants
neighbours,
was
of
collected
was
information
likely
T
o
co-workers
town,
participated
in
and
many
the
of
Changes
in
predicted
social
ties
changes
in
(for
example,
depressive
acquiring
symptoms,
new
but
friends)
not
vice
versa.
study
.
Conclusion
•
A
questionnaire
for
measuring
depression
was
Depression
administered
three
times
between
1983
and
2001
the
one
•
of
the
cohorts
Rosenquist,
all
data,
in
Fowler
with
a
this
and
focus
longitudinal
Christakis
on
levels
of
Treatment
4.3.1
Assessing
the
SNOITINIFED
Meta-analysis—statistical
from
a
large
number
of
(2011)
analysis
person
socially
may
cause
connected
depression
to
(friends,
in
people
relatives,
workers).
In
this
sense,
along
network
symptoms
of
depression
may
co-
spread
computerized
in
the
of
social
connections
somewhat
like
an
each
disease.
disorders
effectiveness
published
is
study
.
depression
of
one
individual
infectious
4.3
in
to
of
data
research
of
treatment
aggregated
Psychotherapy—psychological
papers
treatment
of
mental
treatment
by
medication
psychotherapy
and
disorders;
from
focuses
approaches
this
the
purely
section
concept
on
to
the
excludes
of
psychological
approaches
ESSENTIAL
UNDERSTANDING
•
Challenges
There
are
many
treatment
need
•
to
be
disorders.
in
in
assessing
the
are
of
These
some
effectiveness
the
factors
of
with
severe
the
mild
disorder—some
disorders,
others
treatments
that
may
be
•
work
more
exact
mechanism
of
therapy
effectiveness
will
know
which
in
client.
the
Placebo
requires
outcomes—indicators
of
effectiveness
an
observable
reduction
of
symptoms,
of
quality
of
life,
as
reported
by
improvement
close
friends
of
The
time
frame
treatments
some
•
in
the
Method
of
observable
most
measures
Unit
may
be
long
be
more
and
measuring
in
a
indicators,
of
short-term
or
effective
the
in
can
if
it
cause
only
the
conclude
outperforms
sophisticated
research
if
we
positive
a
that
do
the
capture
the
a
placebo.
long-term.
short
questions
effectiveness
two
broad
of
psychotherapy
questions.
implies
Meta-analysis
to
answer
allows
but
do
4—Abnormal
not
experiences.
aspects,
but
psychology
are
us
to
these.
Some
•
Is
•
What
psychotherapy
elements
effective
for
effectiveness?
on
average?
term,
of
psychotherapy
its
exactly
are
responsible
outcome—
behaviour
they
This
designs.
relatives.
patient’
s
patient’
s
more
therapy
not
change
term.
changes
reliable
complexity
96
may
exactly
knowledge
incomplete
social
attempt
•
more
the
answering
adjustment
effective
be
self-reported
Assessing
improvement
is
change—our
could
Research
be
elements
effects—we
treatment
effective
cases.
T
reatment
The
of
of
considered.
Severity
better
•
of
challenges
are
the
capture
the
Self-report
less
reliable.
See
“Is
and
“What
psychotherapy
elements
psychotherapy?”
effective
explain
on
the
average?”
effectiveness
of
Current
Current
is
effective,
larger
due
role
to
but
the
suggests
common
than
specic
nature
applicable
to
all
of
the
(1952)
specically,
his
treatment,
in
that
available
showed
the
in
psychotherapy
that
was
RCT
s
of
was
were
data
years
not
not
and
not
arrived
work.
of
the
effectiveness
with
to
treatment
and
control
of
as
a
method
was
used
at
More
and
of
studies
is
375
in
was
that.
studies
and
Smith
fact
led
to
multiple
attempts
yet
at
psychotherapy
to
50%
often
of
more
rigorously
research
itself.
T
o
further
was
not
and
new
methods
developed.
testing
the
and
treatment
Classic
meta-analyses
observed
to
What
very
little
psychotherapy
example,
in
explained
only
as
difference
in
Smith
(such
elements
terms
and
about
of
Glass
10%
Eysenck
their
of
the
the
Smith
that
are
there
should
psychotherapy
These
and
elements
psychotherapy.
of
present
are
are
exist
to
the
some
and
Glass)
approaches
of
in
some
Full
For
therapy
T
o
or
are
as
and
this
for
outcome
of
are
of
that
with
are
Jacobson
et
al
was
not
found
components
may
suggest
to
(such
that
therapy
basis
that
client
of
their
psychotherapy
in
their
individuals
analysis
(compared
chance).
effectiveness
a
of
psychotherapy
,
meta-analysis
medicine.
It
was
comparing
demonstrated
psychotherapy
was
in
fact
that
comparable
medical
practices,
such
as
the
to
that
inuenza
surgery
.
average
We
need
estimates
keep
in
mind,
to
across
all
possible
however
,
types
analyse
which
sometimes
these
and
many
different
types
of
mental
of
disorders.
psychotherapy?
for
elements
patient
employ
studies
programme
the
some
while
Patient
psychotherapy
so-called
patients
other
where
of
improvement,
one
the
outcomes
in
the
undergo
elements
complete
are
studies
“dismantling
undergo
patients
of
exactly
research
full
design”.
treatment
incomplete
of
treatment
and
is
incomplete
factors
specic
unique
to
Wampold
of
of
factors
a
are
then
compared.
to
effectiveness.
non-specic
contrasted
meta-analysis
common
approaches
its
a
the
untreated
random
the
with
cataract
responsible
In
(2007)
psychotherapy
willingness
given
(1996)—dismantling
understanding
CBT
individual
most)
typical
of
on
concluded
conducted
established
those
effectiveness
treatment.
RESEARCH
Essential
(or
responsible
known
They
all
psychotherapy—elements
approach
✪
in
by
(2007)
programmes
that
and
75%
quantify
programmes
suggests
The
conducted
selected
the
effectiveness.
type
variance
quality)
expected
removed.
elements
of
Biological
This
measures.
This
“4.3.2
emerged.
various
overall
(1997)
by
discussion
was
explain
or
between
(1977)
than
psychotherapy
RESEARCH
see
a
effectiveness
improving
Meta-analysis
of
For
random;
that
developed
with
the
vaccine
methodology
treatment,
deals
treatment
at
of
of
drug
(carefully
effective.
healthier
effectiveness
research
section
antidepressants).
of
Glass
methodological
any
than
groups
not
this
excludes
depression”.
psychotherapy
meta-analysis
as
in
and
average?
patients
research
yet
on
Wampold
allocation
discussed
treatment
(such
treatment
not
patients
without
larger
of
is
effective
67%
success
quality
medication
a
However
,
conclusion
evidence
circumstances.
does
that
two
rate
methodological
low:
this
play
the
psychological
general
may
techniques.
all
psychotherapy
However,
time
and
in
factors
psychotherapy
recovered
and
undergoing
therapeutic
analysis
spontaneously
(non-specic)
reviewed
that
psychotherapy
meta-analyses,
Is
conclusion
that
treatments
RESEARCH
Eysenck
All
evidence
evidence
to
suggested
trust
alliance
between
effects.
See
that
effectiveness
the
the
therapist;
therapist
“Non-specic
three
are
non-specic
especially
formation
and
factors
the
of
salient:
of
client;
a
factors
client’
s
working
placebo
psychotherapy”.
CBT
Participants
be
as
any
more
effective
behavioural
there
are
other
than
activation
its
alone),
152
outpatients
III-R
criteria.
with
major
depression
according
to
DSM-
non-specic
Method
factors
at
work
that
make
therapy
effective
even
in
the
Experiment;
absence
of
specic
therapeutic
matched
pairs
design.
techniques.
Background
Aim
The
T
o
explain
the
effectiveness
of
CBT
for
depression
•
pinpointing
the
components
responsible
for
full
CBT
treatment
includes
three
major
components:
by
behavioural
activation
(such
as
home
assignments
patterns
of
behaviour
,
therapy
to
rehearse
certain
role-plays,
outcomes.
monitoring
of
daily
activities)
Abnormal
psychology
97
•
the
as
teaching
learning
rational
of
to
they
skills
notice
modify
automatic
thoughts
(such
decreased
automatic
to
thoughts,
analysing
how
these
negative
elements
thinking;
were
changes
measured
by
in
core
schemas.
All
questionnaires.
are)
Results
•
modication
of
core
schemas
(changing
one’
s
deep
•
beliefs
about
the
self,
the
world
and
the
There
was
produced
According
to
the
cognitive
theory
of
no
better
of
core
schemas
is
the
ultimate
goal
of
so
all
three
elements
work
together
to
change
in
the
complete
any
of
treatment
the
two
treatments.
This
was
true
for
such
outcome
variables
as
“altering
the
ensure
patient’
s
positive
the
than
the
•
therapy
,
that
outcomes
depression,
incomplete
modication
evidence
future).
negative
thinking
patterns”.
Patients
in
all
three
patient.
conditions
increased
showed
improvement
behavioural
activation,
in
all
three
decreased
domains—
negative
Procedure
thinking,
Participants
were
randomly
assigned
to
one
of
and
a
positive
change
to
the
core
schemas.
This
three
was
puzzling
because
clearly
the
complete
treatment
conditions:
targets
•
the
full
CBT
treatment
(including
all
three
negative
thinking
patterns
and
core
beliefs
to
a
core
much
greater
extent
than
incomplete
treatments.
components)
•
treatment
that
combined
behavioural
activation
and
the
Conclusion
teaching
of
skills
to
modify
automatic
thoughts
(the
rst
No
two
evidence
effective
•
the
was
found
that
full
cognitive
treatment
is
more
components)
behavioural
activation
component
than
any
of
its
components.
only
.
Discussion
The
outcome
measures
were
depressive
symptoms,
assessed
One
through
self-report
questionnaires
and
interviews.
Apart
from
these
also
looked
of
measures
of
researchers
at
measures
of
three
separate
domains:
increased
behavioural
Non-specic
Non-specic
factors
explain
puzzling
•
no
its
•
such
difference
separate
lack
in
of
of
Smith
a
components
and
overall
Glass
could
of
in
potentially
treatment
Jacobson
et
approaches
effectiveness
programme
al
to
in
and
(1999)
(2007)
psychotherapy
Eysenck
•
(1952)
(1977).
reviewed
present
evidence
three
non-specic
especially
factors
of
Client’s
incomplete
effective
puzzling
nding
these
is
factors
treatment
despite
the
protocols,
absence
of
techniques.
help
me”)—therapists
kind
of
this
may
outweigh
and
psychotherapy
trust
may
end
the
Formation
of
entails
readiness
the
work
Placebo
who
up
effect
are
being
of
a
capable
more
of
inspiring
effective,
particular
and
method
of
a
working
together
of
alliance
the
with
client
the
effects—while
with
to
the
take
client—this
responsibility
therapist.
research
tries
to
separate
suggested
effects
from
the
“real”
effect
of
psychotherapy
,
effectiveness
practical
terms
therapists
may
make
use
of
placebo
salient.
effects
•
the
this
in
are
in
therapy
will
placebo
that
even
the
therapeutic
and
empirical
this
Perhaps
treatment.
•
Wampold
of
factors.
psychotherapy
as:
full
between
their
factors
psychotherapy
ndings
between
variation
terms
and
of
explanations
non-specic
activation;
specic
RESEARCH
of
change
rendering
in
potential
presence
overall
were
effectiveness
the
semi-structured
the
clinical
willingness
to
trust
that
the
therapist
to
make
their
clients
more
responsive
to
will
treatment.
provide
4.3.2
an
explanation
that
Biological
SNOITINIFED
the
by
affecting
help
them
(“I
treatment
Antidepressants—drugs
symptoms
will
that
the
target
levels
of
believe
of
you
depression
depressive
Publication
neurotransmitters
in
be
bias—the
published
more
tendency
often
than
for
successful
unsuccessful
trials
to
trials
brain
Response
Fluoxetine—an
that
function
as
antidepressant;
an
SSRI
one
(selective
of
the
serotonin
treatment;
reuptake
who
at
least
showed
standardized
a
50%
depression
indicators
the
of
the
percentage
decrease
in
of
the
participants
scores
on
scale
UNDERSTANDING
various
treatment
assumption
the
of
Mechanism
Biological
of
effectiveness
inhibitor)
ESSENTIAL
rate—one
chemicals
that
the
of
depression
major
cause
is
of
based
on
depression
is
types
mechanism
the
is
of
antidepressants,
different.
See
and
their
physiological
“Antidepressants”.
a
Effectiveness
chemical
imbalance
in
the
brain.
T
o
restore
balance,
we
•
can
use
antidepressants—drugs
that
modify
the
level
A
complete
into
neurotransmitters
98
Unit
available
4—Abnormal
in
the
synaptic
psychology
gaps.
evaluation
of
effectiveness
should
take
of
There
are
account
various
factors
such
as
long-term
versus
a
short-term
methods
that
effects
of
antidepressants
symptoms
of
•
the
long
may
term.
study
Conclusions
on
bias.
demonstrated
so
are
combined,
obvious
“Criticism
of
for
same
“Treatment
alternative
has
the
provide
the
a
•
quick
of
This
shown
reduction
levels
of
been
of
result,
patients,
but
the
Kirsch
more
with
(2014)
antidepressants
of
the
and
published
there
of
grounds
effectiveness
when
may
biological
of
Kirsch
of
types
et
al
•
bias.
it
effective
may
symptoms
is
regarding
data
after
See
are
for
a
only
relevant
to
that
average
across
a
other
but
that
on.
not
with
of
Elkin
must
be
that
reduced
types
et
al
and
are
with
moderate
to
(most
criticism”.
notably
urgently),
analysis.
but
should
See
of
(1989)
antidepressants
treatment
cost-benet
antidepressants
aggregate
methods
mild
situations
antidepressant
the
antidepressants
treatment
concluded
variety
careful
so
“Counter-arguments
be
that
and
example,
than
See
in
is
disorder,
depression,
Overall,
(2002)
unpublished
publication
of
effective
severe
of
antidepressants
and
be
possibility
have
however,
effectiveness
demonstrated,
effectiveness
adolescents
criticism,
estimates
depression.
effectiveness
on
so
and
it
(TADS)”.
that
not
to
example,
effective
reach
the
questioned
publication
comparison
For
are
See
depression
been
a
depression
psychotherapy
in
and
treatment.
be
are
severe
decisions
made
“Conclusion:
effective?”.
treatment”.
ANTIDEPRESSANTS
Antidepressants
are
neurotransmitters
with
•
depressive
T
ricyclic
of
synaptic
of
this
group
of
of
monoamine
associated
dopamine,
the
serotonin
This
and
the
Selective
reuptake
probably
and
increases
neurotransmitters
the
available
the
chemical
that
activity
of
breaks
of
are
provide
same
levels
a
for
target
for
quick
of
result,
but
effectiveness
in
SSRIs,
popular
the
widely
trade
used
drugs.
Several
popular
name
for
of
This
the
gap.
these
uoxetine
(SSRIs)
is
is
are
antidepressants.
also
makes
effectiveness
different
of
serotonin,
inhibitors
class
into
as
synaptic
specically
.
research
most
(such
the
reuptake
serotonin
scientic
with
depression
study
they
had
been
of
psychotherapy
not
participate
the
included
of
symptoms
long
term.
the
(T
ADS)
any
reduction
most
in
chemicals
uoxetine.
them
of
function
A
Prozac.
excess
adolescents
the
the
ideal
that
effective
serotonin
antidepressant
monoamine
down
neurotransmitters
noradrenaline)
They
as
understanding
depression
reach
of
T
reatment
Antidepressants
may
as
gap.
decrease
a
RESEARCH
✪
be
gap.
(MAO):
Essential
level
to
inhibit
such
the
inhibitors
oxidase
(TCA)
in
synaptic
MAO
the
shown
•
neurotransmitters,
concentration
•
modify
been
antidepressants
certain
the
that
have
symptoms.
noradrenaline,
in
drugs
that
other
three
taking
three
in
(2004–2007)
the
a
placebo
treatment
study
groups
of
Stage
3:
continuation
meant
to
assess
any
and
allowed
conditions,
more.
but
Therefore
to
choose
they
did
stage
2
only
participants.
treatment
(18
weeks).
This
stage
was
Aim
T
o
examine
drug
the
treatment
depression
in
short-term
and
and
long-term
psychotherapy
for
effectiveness
the
treatment
adolescents.
Method
Response
rates
Response
rate
trial;
longitudinal
study
.
Scale
Participants
13
clinics
439
50%
in
of
treatment.
the
scale
(or
used
as
the
percentage
more)
such
as
in
the
indicator
of
the
of
effectiveness.
participants
scores
Hamilton
on
a
who
showed
standardized
Depression
Rating
(HAM-D).
Results
the
USA
participants
participants
were
is
decrease
depression
control
effectiveness
of
of
a
Randomized
long-term
in
were
were
involved
in
the
total—adolescents
diagnosed
with
project
aged
major
with
12–17.
•
All
At
the
best
depression.
end
of
stage
response
alone
was
rate
slightly
outperformed
1
combination
(71%).
lower
CBT
The
(61%).
(44%)
treatment
response
and
These
rate
had
of
the
uoxetine
treatments
placebo
(35%).
Procedure
•
TADS
was
a
multi-site
study
in
the
USA
funded
by
At
the
end
Institute
of
Mental
Health
(NIMH).
The
study
(response
weeks
in
total
and
was
conducted
in
three
1:
randomly
acute
treatment
assigned
•
uoxetine
•
CBT
•
a
•
placebo
to
one
(12
of
weeks).
four
Participants
were
•
conditions:
2:
the
(81%
and
uoxetine
clinical
and
consolidation
(six
more
weeks).
At
of
stage
1
clients
from
the
with”
65%
for
CBT
and
medical
69%
treatment,
however
,
for
was
end
effective
still
of
stage
was
still
equalled
both
for
3
(85%).
the
the
effectiveness
same,
but
combination
uoxetine
and
both
of
treatment
CBT
combination
other
in
groups
effectiveness
conditions).
three
placebo
group
were
active
treatments
of
depression
outperform
the
placebo,
end
up
Conclusion
management.
treatment
“caught
CBT
All
Stage
At
almost
alone
of
rate
Combination
more
treatment
alone
combination
CBT
stages.
slightly
Stage
2
lasted
uoxetine).
36
stage
the
treatment
National
of
so
both
medical
treatment
and
psychotherapy
can
informed
be
considered
effective.
The
effectiveness
of
Abnormal
antidepressants
psychology
99
for
reducing
that
the
depression
symptoms
is
caused
of
by
depression
a
chemical
supports
the
imbalance
in
same
of
idea
a
the
quick
response
suicidal
is
important
(for
example,
when
there
are
thoughts).
brain.
Response
If
continued,
CBT
effectiveness
treatment.
as
gradually
medication
Therefore
psychotherapy
reaches
in
the
and
the
even
medication
is
short
but
term,
level
may
be
suggested
antidepressants
should
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
There
about
is
be
on
more
these
effective
not
in
results
recommended,
Criticism
of
the
is
the
of
Discontinued
Discontinued
69%
81%
44%
65%
81%
71%
85%
86%
CBT
term.
+
CBT
that
especially
the
antidepressants.
existence
of
when
T
able
4.2
Based
conclusions
One
publication
of
(2014)
and
reviewed
formulated
both
several
published
the
•
largest
There
side
bias.
and
arguments
effectiveness
of
•
antidepressants
Different
irrespective
•
of
suggest
that
actually
cause
There
may
their
some
be
physiological
other
similar
clinical
is
a
successful
in
mechanism.
non-physiological
are
both
bias
in
the
tend
This
et
al
combined
may
clinical
of
the
TADS
website
trials
may
be
under-
literature.
an
present
be
are
(2002)
both
trials
companies.
factors
estimates
to
unsuccessful
“enhanced
in
clinicians
they
placebo
antidepressant
and
assigned
patients
can
effect”:
drugs
work
but
out
as
not
in
which
to.
of
concluded
of
are
published
and
a
that
showed
was
sponsored
that
duplicated
when
they
published
fail
to
meta-analysis
unpublished
antidepressants
Results
combined
conducted
published
antidepressants
trials
and
scientic
possibility
effects
effect
improvement.
publication
effectiveness:
on
the
Kirsch
very
available
unpublished
against
antidepressants.
show
information
frequently
,
condition
data
on
treatment
placebo,
Kirsch
weeks
than
long
biological
validity
36
35%
doubt
the
weeks
61%
represented
of
18
Fluoxetine
more
about
weeks
Placebo
understanding
effectiveness
limitations
based
12
combination
Fluoxetine
It
rate
82%
by
of
by
the
placebo.
and
that
data
from
pharmaceutical
effect
The
unpublished
demonstrate
of
researchers
data
effectiveness
of
antidepressants.
RESEARCH
The
main
Counter-arguments
counter-argument
antidepressants
may
be
is
that
misleading
to
average
and
we
the
criticism
estimates
should
look
criticism
of
antidepressants
of
•
antidepressant
effectiveness
•
placebo
of
at
to
more
of
problem
instead.
For
example,
it
has
been
severity
of
the
disorder
is
support
be
of
taken
of
the
into
idea
account
antidepressants,
which
250
conditions
patients
interpersonal
•
CBT
severity
when
Elkin
were
(placebo,
•
that
et
of
depression
determining
al
(1989)
randomly
drugs
and
the
as
types
of
to
a
study
one
of
All
to
effectiveness
conducted
assigned
two
needs
in
all
ARE
The
this
with
estimates
•
in
four
three
For
mild
did
not
there
psychotherapy):
the
•
outcome
types
question
of
active
and
of
presence
can
be
is
that
antidepressant
it
invites
the
use
effectiveness
of
that
(for
will
of
When
we
was
we
short-term
effects
of
a
clearer
depression,
in
among
advantage
cases
disorder
(such
as
of
that
treatment
severity
,
the
of
try
on
research
have
Kirsch
argued
to
of
16
weeks.
Results
outperformed
the
three
conditions
themselves.
of
medication
severe
depression.
drugs
for
et
that
been
al
arrive
results
antidepressants
but
the
suicidal
versus
do
depend
analyses
example,
effects)
characteristics
conditions
substantially
concluded
However
,
over
are
severe
more
effective
than
depression.
are
of
studies.
such
aggregate
Findings
inconclusive:
signicantly
(2002)
these
at
meta-analyses
and
results
most
Kirsch
may
from
more
be
of
such
them
effective
(2014)
due
estimates,
combining
to
raised
a
large
meta-
suggest
than
doubts
publication
that
placebo,
and
bias.
thoughts)
However
,
•
for
EFFECTIVE?
antidepressants
characteristics
continued
treatment
moderate
differ
psychotherapy
number
variables
long-term
•
ANTIDEPRESSANTS
across:
•
was
psychotherapy
CONCLUSION:
average
groups
follows.
psychological
problem
management
placebo.
It
aggregate
clinical
important.
•
In
and
management.
argued
were
that
medication
clinical
specic
T
reatment
types
and
the
patient
(such
as
age,
this
concerns
the
aggregate
estimates.
There
may
cultural
be
considerable
variations
depending
on
specic
outcome
background).
variables,
100
Unit
4—Abnormal
psychology
characteristics
of
the
patient,
characteristics
of
the
disorder
,
that
the
and
increasingly
is
more
so
on.
For
effectiveness
superior
severe
example,
of
to
initially
.
it
has
been
antidepressants
other
So,
methods
demonstrated
becomes
when
antidepressants
the
may
depression
preferred
disorder
be
for
method
of
treatment
in
cases
of
severe
example,
et
al,
may
therefore
in
symptoms
it
are
more
effective
the
short-term
has
been
demonstrated
than
(see
other
that
methods
”T
reatment
of
SNOITINIFED
rate—recurrence
(developing
symptoms
treatment
Remission
show
little
treatment
ESSENTIAL
was
no
of
a
of
treatment
regarding
in
be
with
treatment
past
of
condition
depression
again
a
is
psychological
the
of
of
CBT
targets
more
and
after
many
highly
focused
other
on
short
of
In
the
outcome
are
response
•
In
terms
after
rates,
of
RESEARCH
✪
a
at
are
It
is
with
irrational
based
its
See
on
assumption
automatic
(making
it
16
In
must
that
situations
be
antidepressants
(most
reduced
notably
urgently),
treatment
case-to-case
rate—the
least
the
thinking
(making
So
of
a
basis
50%
and
after
percentage
decrease
depression
specic,
•
The
the
client
process
is
of
CBT
expected
to
Three
and
some
of
are
severe
a
but
its
decisions
duration
careful
should
cost-benet
in
of
participants
the
scores
on
who
a
scale
CBT
,
and
research
DeRubeis
we
et
used
rates,
studies
For
as
weeks,
effect
It
be
is
which
CBT
al
of
lasts
in
may
medication.
clusters
the
has
skills
been
of
in
However
,
the
et
al
this
therapist.
be
therapy
more
the
effect
therapy
could
are
also
being
responsive
example,
is
CBT
depend
targeted.
to
Fournier
and
depressive
that
the
(2005)
particular
For
shown
than
after
medication
of
medication
treatment.
enduring
Hollon
that
on
longer
cognitive
symptoms
al
it
more
symptoms
to
equals
of
(2005)
rates,
is
See
some
et
an
et
Some
different
a
dependent
relapse
of
CBT
weeks
CBT
,
et
al
(2013)
targeted
symptoms.
See
slightly
Fournier
(2013)
it
al
at
measures
has
have
of
revealed
CBT
CBT
sessions.
specic
For
pattern
to
Goldapple
may
CBT
been
physiological
compared
been
CBT
of
Effects
a
rates.
that
example,
look
Mechanism
substantiated
changes
example,
of
brain
medication
in
in
patients
Goldapple
changes
patients.
in
research
who
(2004)
CBT
that
went
through
demonstrated
patients
as
See
(2004)
DeRubeis
(2005)—response
and
remission
rates
at
8
weeks
and
16
weeks
Participants
medication
but
of
demonstrated
is
should
relapse
remission
medication.
DeRubeis
that
16
therapy
.
commonly
rates
be
Effectiveness
and
problems.
may
after
medication—it
on
two
restructuring
well-dened
showed
discontinued.
them
rational
the
psychotherapy
,
(2005)
terms
of
more
environment).
cognitive
forms
in
effective
at
•
behaviour
.
thoughts
al
success
of
understanding
as
individual
the
remission
as
depression
to
response
effective
is
by
automatic
variables.
in
CBT
that
effectiveness
method
depression.
effectiveness
be
Essential
of
the
CBT
demonstrated
as
present.
who
studied,
depression
irrational
process.
participant
characterizing
of
of
behaviour
CBT
Effectiveness
various
concluded
antidepressant
on
show
activation
Unlike
active
to
the
and
of
extensively
caused
adjusted
goals
relatively
is
both
behavioural
•
theory
lead
logical)
more
major
be
variety
Response
while
participants
depression
evidence-based
treatment
depression
that
most
and
cognitive
patterns
•
the
necessary
,
UNDERSTANDING
well-established
that
are
be
are
period
perhaps
Beck’
s
a
standardized
percentage
symptoms
made
et
CBT
thoughts
may
results
depression
CBT
•
suicidal
they
quick
analysis.
discontinued)
rate—the
or
of
antidepressants
adolescents
Psychological
Relapse
the
Therefore
where
1989).
Similarly
,
4.3.3
when
cases
depression
effective
(Elkin
(TADS)”.
in
the
It
preferred
study
method
this
for
moderate
depends
on
the
to
severe
skills
of
the
240
patients
diagnosed
with
MDD,
moderate
to
severe
symptoms.
therapist.
Procedure
Aim
T
o
Participants
investigate
compared
to
long
(16
term
response
and
medication
weeks)
for
in
relapse
the
rates
short
moderate
of
term
to
CBT
(8
severe
as
were
randomly
assigned
•
16
weeks
of
antidepressant
and
•
16
weeks
of
CBT
depression.
•
8
weeks)
weeks
Research
of
took
to
three
groups:
medication
placebo.
place
at
several
different
research
sites
Method
(with
Randomized
control
several
different
therapists).
Depression
symptoms
trial.
Abnormal
psychology
101
were
measured
Depression
before
Rating
and
Scale
after
therapy
by
the
Hamilton
Conclusion
(HAM-D).
CBT
can
be
as
moderate
to
therapist’
s
skill
effective
severe
as
medication
depression—but
for
this
the
is
treatment
contingent
of
on
the
Results
•
At
8
weeks
placebo,
both
but
the
the
active
response
treatments
rate
was
and
outperformed
slightly
higher
in
the
8
medication
experience.
weeks
16
Response
•
At
16
weeks
group.
weeks
response
rates
reached
58%
both
rate
Response
rate
Remission
for
rate
medication
•
Remission
•
However
,
At
one
more
and
rates
CBT
.
at
results
site
in
16
weeks
were
not
particular
,
effective
than
were
also
uniform
across
medication
Medication
50%
58%
46%
CBT
43%
58%
40%
Placebo
25%
-
-
similar
.
research
turned
out
to
sites.
be
CBT
.
T
able
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Hollon
et
al
(2005)—relapse
therapy
has
a
Results
more
enduring
effect
than
Results
medication.
Method
and
groups
•
patients
DeRubeis
et
al
(2005)
conclusion
that
enduring
effect
relapse
group.
that
rates
This
extends
were
shows
beyond
the
that
the
smallest
CBT
end
has
of
in
the
an
treatment.
It
procedure
of
patients
compared.
therapy
and
showed
treatment
with
moderate
to
severe
They
who
and
suggests
that
medication
mainly
targets
the
symptoms
depression
of
were
from
cognitive
also
Three
Findings
rates
understanding
Cognitive
4.3
depression
but
not
the
cause.
were:
responded
were
positively
withdrawn
to
from
Group
cognitive
treatment
for
Relapse
Responded
to
CBT
,
rate
in
12
months
withdrawn
31%
12
•
from
months
patients
who
responded
to
medication
and
continued
treatment
Responded
to
medication,
47%
continued
medication
•
patients
who
responded
to
medication
and
continued
to
medication
Responded
to
medication,
76%
take
a
placebo.
continued
T
able
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
CBT
et
al
(2013)—clusters
of
symptoms;
medication
to
to
increase
specic
target
slightly
effectiveness
symptoms
different
treatments
(rather
than
Findings
depressive
•
mood
of
•
cognitive
should
be
•
anxiety
•
vegetative
“depression”
in
from
Hollon
et
al
(2005)
symptoms
clusters
understanding
and
matched
Fournier
4.4
placebo
symptoms
(suicidal
symptoms
(such
thoughts)
as
insomnia).
general).
Results
It
Procedure
Patients
were
medication,
separately
randomly
CBT
and
Essential
✪
that
because
three
Results
were
was
found
vegetative
conditions—
cognitive
measured
Goldapple
(2004)—brain
changes
a
specic
pattern
cognitive
from
those
cortical
Method
scans
and
were
medication
scales
scores
102
in
of
areas
brain
treatment.
observed
are
in
changes
These
in
CBT
to
a
taking
much
The
patients
changes
patients
affected
in
the
are
medication
greater
degree.
the
Unit
procedure
used
to
conditions.
both
by
CBT
symptoms
was
but
more
effective
medication
(suicidal
had
for
a
reducing
faster
effect
on
thoughts).
patients
two
treatments
cortical-limbic
cortex
was
to
the
groups
end
of
compare
The
were
the
of
patients
starting
similar
,
in
scores
as
well
as
treatment.
4—Abnormal
CBT
on
psychology
brain
system.
with
was
(the
similar
in
that
they
However
,
metabolic
associated
limbic
changes
with
system
in
that
in
the
CBT
acts
the
in
the
CBT
cortex
the
brain
affected
connect
addition,
changes
and
both
and
lower
areas
stem).
and
the
the
the
were
pathways—structures
limbic
associated
medication
PET
that
symptoms,
Results
understanding
is
undergo
different
placebo.
to
for:
RESEARCH
There
assigned
Conclusion
HAM-D
reduction
in
The
researchers
whereas
concluded
medication
that
produces
more
in
a
“top–down”
“bottom–up”
way
changes.
4.3.4
The
role
SNOITINIFED
Compliance
patient
to
clinician,
with
follow
such
of
in
treatment—willingness
the
as
culture
recommendations
regularly
taking
the
treatment
of
from
the
Internal
the
prescribed
the
medicine
Effects
The
role
cultural
of
of
of
cultural
in
differences
clinical
of
the
of
factors
treatment
in
how
presented
biases
in
is
manifold.
symptoms
and
of
perceived
diagnosis”).
mental
Cultural
disorder
the
interventions
the
(2012)
disorders
are
sensitive
“4.1.4
culture
The
disorders,
factors
treatment.
affects
For
et
can
treatment
inuence
example,
al
(1987)
antidepressant
is
also
compliance
it
compliance
was
that
shown
cultural
medication
with
in
Cultural
factors
in
a
a
the
US
treatment
clinics.
See
among
Kinzie
rates
Southeast
et
al
can
inuence
the
This
model
will
in
turn
so
a
culturally
sensitive
understand
the
RESEARCH
✪
patient’
s
internal
Kinzie
et
mediate
all
psychiatrist
al
patient
and
backgrounds,
the
sensitive
is
in
may
because
fail
these
their
culturally
must
may
determined
be
remedied
beliefs
by
model
and
with
the
in
US
who
clinics.
The
examined
underwent
All
antidepressants
with
belong
to
to
follow
different
patients
(TCA).
41
about
depressed
long-term
had
The
determine
RESEARCH
✪
In
models
of
versions
been
mental
discussing
Southeast
treatment
prescribed
patients’
whether
Naeem
traditional
illness
of
al
(2012)
may
be
bottom–up
designed
approach.
using
The
substantially
the
the
treatment
cultural
variables
programme.
See
treatment”.
of
culturally
sensitive
meta-analyses
such
treatment
as
Griner
has
and
been
Smith
especially
showed
when
that
they
cultural
specically
adaptations
group.
See
Griner
and
target
Smith
a
(2006)
treatment
medicine.
levels
in
61%
Results
of
the
showed
no
detectable
patients.
researchers
explain
this
result
by
social
stigma
associated
clash
taking
antidepressants.
illness.
the
same
time,
cultural
attitudes
towards
authority
may
they
following
the
the
of
such
patients
to
pretend
that
are
TCA
they
et
al
CBT
that
that
be
account
not
to
offend
the
doctor
.
Asian
levels
However
,
after
problems
and
a
doctor–patient
benets
of
discussion
antidepressants,
about
the
the
rates
actually
signicantly
improved.
This
of
shows
how
an
open
were
about
the
client’
s
cultural
beliefs
may
positively
taking
(2012)—internal
model
of
treatment.
illness
Participants
communities
could
as
tricyclic
blood
were
so
depression
understanding
certain
developing
et
the
prescriptions
openly
in
cultural
prescribed
medicine
affect
Essential
a
sensitive
antidepressant
discussion
to
or
researchers
effective
compliance
examined
al
patient.
researchers
patients
in
Naeem
et
culturally
treatment
into
effectiveness
prescription
The
use
local
Naeem
a
adjust
cause
issue
for
See
design
strive
At
situation
example,
to
treatment
how
incorporated
The
the
patients
prescriptions
CBT
For
possible
treatment
(1987)—compliance
therapist
is
model
with
This
patient
Asian
The
with
a
about
of
understanding
the
therapist’s
information
(1987)
patient’
s
internal
of
it
Pakistan.
top–down
particular
cultural
is,
being
of
are
When
way
(that
illness);
study
(2006).
illness.
Essential
the
her
with
perceptions
inuence
as
demonstrated
to
or
the
accordingly
.
sensitive
Culturally
•
patients
efforts,
his
determined
disorder
affected.
“Culturally
of
by
culturally
mental
these
are
•
a
inuences
that
version
such
difference
Kinzie
of
perceives
processed
showed
cultures
role
either
by
is
it
the
from
stems
mental
(see
Since
It
•
•
illness—a
patient
schema,
Culturally
aspects
of
representation
UNDERSTANDING
culture
experienced,
way
type
ESSENTIAL
model
schematic
taken
for
there
into
local
exist
internal
account
needs
and
to
Nine
develop
patients
attending
a
psychiatric
outpatient
clinic
in
Pakistan.
values.
Procedure
Aim
In
T
o
develop
a
culturally
its
effectiveness
in
the
sensitive
CBT
developing
programme
world
(with
and
assess
Pakistan
as
example).
an
interviews,
on
their
were
and
conducted
made
This
participants
illness
later
data
in
based
was
the
Urdu
on
were
course
the
combined
and
asked
of
the
tape
about
their
treatment.
recorded;
thoughts
Interviews
transcripts
were
recordings.
with
eld
notes
from
one
of
the
Method
authors
Qualitative
eld
research
study
using
data
from
interviews
during
his
clinical
eld
practice.
Inductive
content
and
observations.
Abnormal
psychology
103
analysis
the
was
applied
patients’
to
derive
subjective
common
themes
emerging
in
•
Modes
interpretations.
of
referred
•
referral
to
Patients’
the
for
clinic
help—the
by
knowledge
majority
of
patients
were
relatives.
about
treatment
of
depression—
Results
they
Four
themes
emerged
in
the
content
believed
Patients’
to
mental
for
physical
symptoms,
their
poor
•
perceptions
mention
illness
sleep”
Patients’
attributed
“thinking
and
CULTURALL
Y
Results
of
of
are
sensitive
in
the
illness
the
to
more
certain
we
such
as
as
a
than
Conclusion
label
Based
“illness
of
able
of
on
to
took
causes
using
of
either
a
a
the
results
develop
local
a
needs
of
into
cured
and
as
depression.
signs
of
investigation,
sensitive
account.
“tension”)
environment”,
this
culturally
in
the
language
by
“good
quality
appropriate
focused
for
on
This
the
the
version
version
context
of
(for
re-interpreting
authors
of
CBT
CBT
were
that
used
example,
somatic
symptoms
TREATMENT
demonstrates
enhance
cultural
contexts
follow
to
that
the
taking
cultural
changing
effectiveness
raise
the
design
support
question:
•
culturally
treatment
to
a
cultural
approach
context
or
a
can
language
of
delivery
or
adaptations
involve
deeper
treatment
start
top–down
the
hiring
bicultural
staff.
Bottom–up
way
treatments?
adaptation
done
be
magicians.
the
are
The
or
depression—they
“worries”.
may
should
could
tended
often
“depression”
“problems
and
which
account
rules
use
expressions
SENSITIVE
into
treatment
what
not
much
“tension”.
much”
research
perceptions
depression—patients
used
about
their
too
did
and
beliefs
of
symptoms
they
analysis.
medicine”
•
that
with
a
is
delivered.
research
phase
Such
where
conducted
to
understand
interpretations
of
the
changes
adaptations
the
qualitative
nature
of
to
the
typically
studies
patients’
be
illness
and
the
treatment
(see
bottom–up
Naeem
et
al
2012).
Culturally
sensitive
treatments
are
approach.
then
•
T
op–down
adaptations
involve
relatively
designed
to
the
original
treatment
programme,
such
Essential
✪
a
this
is
specic
and
Smith
(2006)—effectiveness
understanding
Cultural
and
Griner
adaptation
especially
for
information,
sometimes
as
of
far
as
of
local
acknowledging
healers
and
incorporating
the
culturally
(magicians).
sensitive
treatment
Participants
increases
true
this
as
help
RESEARCH
on
supercial
going
changes
based
effectiveness
specic
of
adaptations
treatment,
The
that
analysis
target
total
sample
was
in
the
around
research
25,000
studies
included
in
the
participants
culture.
Results
Aim
•
T
o
examine
of
mental
the
effectiveness
of
culturally
adapted
treatments
disorders.
There
was
adapted
•
The
benet
groups
Method
and
A
meta-analysis
of
of
76
studies
was
conducted;
only
When
the
that
had
a
quantitative
estimate
of
were
The
of
culturally
was
clients
four
times
than
for
stronger
for
mixed-race
same-race
groups
therapist
spoke
the
client’
s
native
of
clients.
language,
was
more
effective
than
when
the
therapist
English.
included.
types
studies
104
benet
effectiveness
spoke
•
strong”
the
therapy
studies
“moderately
procedure
•
•
a
interventions.
of
familiar
with
training
for
Unit
cultural
ranged
from
the
adaptations
used
consultations
client’
s
culture
to
these
research
individuals
cultural
sensitivity
Conclusion
Cultural
(groups
adaptations
of
treatment
staff.
4—Abnormal
in
with
psychology
clients)
more
carried
are
much
culturally
out
for
more
exible
specic
effective
in
sub-populations
than
general.
making
5
H E A LT H
PSYCHOLOGY
T
opics
Option:
5.1
obesity
5.2
Determinants
5.1.1
of
Health
problems
5.2.1
Biological
5.2.2
Psychological
explanations
Prevalence
rates
of
health
health
Biopsychosocial
(BPS)
explanations
of
problems
health
problems:
problems
Dispositional
5.1.2
of
health
model
of
health
factors
and
health
beliefs
and
5.2.3
Social
5.2.4
Risk
explanations
of
health
problems
well-being
5.3
EXAM
Note
that
the
grouping
from
“ofcial”
what
of
Biopsychosocial
–
Dispositional
–
Risk
is
three
of
in
in
this
the
topics
model
factors
protective
important
to
components
5.1
topics
nd
is
IB
book
shown
of
and
health
Health
promotion
5.3.1
Effectiveness
of
factors
health
promotion
programmes
note
health
because
above
Adiposity
calculated
SNOITINIFED
Body
on
mass
weight
and
well-being
beliefs
in
the
(determinants
Index
the
basis
index
divided
by
nal
of
with
the
rates
(BAI)—a
of
height
(BMI)—a
height
Comorbidity—the
occurring
Health
guide.
Explanations
–
Prevalence
during
a
health
of
health
–
Health
promotion
–
Effectiveness
exam
health,
of
of
measure
and
of
problem(s)
health
health
problem(s)
promotion
of
will
be
programme(s)
presence
primary
of
three
and
period
of
obesity
,
rate
incidence
obesity:
Mortality—
body
diseases
co-
includes
place
cases
of
previously
a
the
and
from,
one
for
each
of
the
disease
(in
or
a
of
a
number
population
and
of
affected
by
a
prevalence
deaths
caused
by
a
disease,
time
Prevalence—the
population
in
choose
disease;
per
new
to
health).
Morbidity—the
additional
time
titles
problems
disease
of
essay
promoting
health
health
of
given
problems
circumference
hip
measure
you
health
squared
development
specied
of
rates
Promoting
a
Incidence—the
problems
–
factors
Prevalence
Body
somewhat
below.
Determinants
5.1.1
is
psychology
health
–
and
of
you
grouping
Determinants
This
protective
TIP
different
The
and
a
percentage
given
health
time
of
individuals
period)
who
are
in
the
experiencing
problem
disease
healthy
individuals
ESSENTIAL
Denitions
The
basic
UNDERSTANDING
and
classication
measurements
•
mortality
•
morbidity
used
in
epidemiology
are:
overweight
currently
population.
See
Nguyen,
(death)
(incidence,
prevalence).
(See
El-Serag
estimate
need
to
epidemiological
establish
normal
weight,
may
used
a
way
to
parameters
classify
overweight
and
of
people
obese.
obesity
as
being
Several
we
of
rst
region,
for
this
including
the
absolute
in
percentiles
of
Index
and
non-BMI
(BAI).
See
measures
such
“Classication
as
of
The
WHO
Global
been
an
and
Database
invariably
obesity
nation
to
on
obesity
BMI.
nation,
for
There
ranging
the
is
the
by
rates
past
50
from
1%
to
maintaining
for
obesity
years,
considerable
Obesity
the
have
leading
variation
80%.
and
world’
s
Hu
2015;
2010)
of
obesity
income
differ
groups.
by
gender
,
See
geographical
“Prevalence
of
sub-groups".
increases
the
risk
cardiovascular
makes
See
Incidence
world
Prevalence
increasing
pandemic.
in
the
(Hruby,
of
comorbidities
disease
and
such
certain
as
types
type
of
2
cancer
.
Body
incidence
monitors
of
obesity
a
costly
problem
and
a
pressing
global
obesity”.
issue.
Prevalence
third
obesity”
BMI,
This
Adiposity
one
of
approaches
value
diabetes,
BMI
rates
age
obesity
a
Obesity
be
over
“Denitions”.)
Prevalence
T
o
affect
“Prevalence
to
from
to
“Costs
is
useful
prevalence.
initiatives.
between
at
a
4%
It
Pan
2008
per
of
is
et
epidemiological
especially
al
and
year
.
obesity”.
See
(2011)
2009
Pan
useful
in
a
US
al
complementary
inform
study
estimated
et
metric
to
the
of
prevention
BMI
changes
incidence
of
obesity
(2011)
and
Health
psychology
105
CLASSIFICATION
Body
The
is
mass
most
on
body
the
OF
index
widely
basis
(BMI)
used
of
OBESITY
body
mass
weight
in
kilograms
The
criterion
of
obesity
BMI
≥
30,
and
the
Non-BMI
approach
to
index
divided
that
criterion
is
classifying
(BMI).
by
This
height
commonly
for
obesity
is
in
is
adults
calculated
metres
used
overweight
in
squared.
worldwide
BMI
≥
as
However
,
measures
using
•
Association
is
classication
25.
mortality
that
as
for
children
is
more
difcult,
body
composition
uctuates
a
lot
as
a
child
this
for
individuals
reason,
the
WHO
publishes
BMI-for-age
19
BMI
The
approach
to
classifying
obesity
is
to
use
rather
than
absolute
values
of
BMI.
The
Centers
for
due
Control
and
Prevention
determine
starts
obesity
age-
and
(CDC)
in
the
sex-specic
USA
use
statistical
percentiles.
For
with
the
failure).
In
risk
fact,
by
BMI)
cannot
of
it
claim
mortality
was
even
(for
shown
a
certain
level
of
BMI
the
risk
of
heart
between
BMI
and
mortality
also
becomes
age.
increasing
(rather
is
same
dened
in
sex
age
and
children
as
group).
BMI
This
≥
95th
means
percentile
that
a
classied
as
obese
Figure
from
5.1
Source:
the
if
their
sex
BMI
exceeds
age
sub-population
and
that
of
fat)
is
a
that
abdominal
better
or
cancer-related
predictor
outcomes.
of
Abdominal
may
be
measured
child
95%
or
by
waist–hip
waist
ratio.
circumference,
For
example,
hip
an
alternative
(for
will
BMI
is
of
(Hruby
,
Body
Adiposity
Index
(BAI),
which
is
based
on
a
be
height
and
hip
circumference
and
does
not
take
other
Hu
account
body
weight.
2015).
www.medicalnewstoday
.com
The
WHO
the
Global
OF
monitors
OBESITY
obesity
Database
available
collaborators.
from
A
on
limitation
samples.
approximately
86%
the
has
USA
the
invariably
prevalence
35%.
The
variation
rate
the
are
some
on
Asia
the
(BMI
in
OF
obesity
the
the
past
a
raised
in
world
men.
For
are
prevalence
for
off,
For
the
women
in
•
and
is
currently
there
far
increase
is
about
in
than
cases
the
of
men.
5—Health
of
and
by
There
some
obesity
regions
have
have
of
been
some
Saudi
obesity
It
is
for
this
the
in
reported
in
if
a
of
for
decrease
one
the
reach
average
1%
third
58%
and
prevalence
India
The
Pacic
of
80%
highest
Islands
for
85%
in
to
of
current
in
Islands.
the
over
that
will
on
variations
Pacic
seen
showed
affect
gure
from
number
exceptions,
men.
world
ranging
a
rare
estimated
the
wide
for
Arabia
overweight
in
been
30%
has
2030
are
worldwide,
of
lowest
and
population.
USA.
in
around
This
population
rates
and
the
Asia.
those
over
several
are
in
“Global
(WHO
more
Africa
is
likely
and
countries,
is
to
women
be
•
Southeast
roughly
exception
Status
2014).
double
is
countries.
•
The
psychology
prevalence
rates
of
obesity
for
men
and
similar
.
prevalence
countries
the
high-income
The
where
are
rate
more
For
in
of
than
obesity
prevalence
everywhere
Unit
rates
obesity
continue,
adult
obesity
gender
more
to
the
much
Denmark
world’
s
trends
to
SUB-GROUPS
WHO’
s
The
obesity
The
up
countries.
prevalence
Globally
the
women
women
men.
example,
nationally
example,
are
Diseases”
for
of
2010)
rising
European
covers
years.
but
EL-SERAG
decades,
on
of
comparable
IN
example,
prevalence
50
there
smooth
OBESITY
NGUYEN,
maintaining
network
lack
Americans
among
Europe
was
a
overweight
levelled
35)
a
by
builds
and
is
2015;
population.
the
in
has
≥
world
database
sub-populations.
points
obesity
of
for
Noncommunicable
than
there
world’
s
obesity
trend
There
Throughout
obese
that
disproportional:
rates
USA.
PREVALENCE
Report
of
obesity
Prevalence
is
the
HU
database
literature
prevalence
among
is
This
However
,
increased
rising
distribution
extreme
of
(HRUBY
,
around
BMI.
published
representative
in
suggesting
body
BMI
PREVALENCE
In
total
data
into
children
evidence
than
cardiovascular
person’
s
106
does
we
example,
to
•
measured
means
decreasing.
with
circumference
Here
heart
association
is
obesity
•
to
so
(as
It
Disease
some
•
obesity
non-linear
.
percentiles
obesity
data
T
onstad
years.
There
the
(Malterud,
percentile
Another
to
is
increases,
starting
weaker
BMI
pitfalls
references
•
under
without
grows.
failure
For
not
however
,
that
because
is
between
and
example
Obesity
BMI
2009).
of
the
overweight
double
this
in
high-income
of
difference
childhood
world,
that
low-income
more
overweight
but
especially
is
in
than
triples.
increasing
Africa
and
Asia.
COSTS
•
OF
Obesity
OBESITY
greatly
depression,
certain
•
It
is
types
of
estimated
expectancy
associated
increases
type
by
2
populations
do
have
been
who
4–7
years.
excess
Pan
rates
not
recently
are
plan
make
obese
in
Studies
risk
et
middle
of
al
years
show
total
such
as
a
and
shortens
life
morbidity
.
is
obesity
a
magnitude
to
of
development.
to
long
that
obesity
mortality
,
identify
death
obese.
the
As
of
Obesity
of
obesity
such,
and
important
and
in
is
disease,
Hu
costly
diabetes,
cancer
or
accidental
2015).
to
the
Therefore,
has
the
The
become
US
adult
who
rates
prevalence
that
are
the
was
national
the
a
economy
problem
pressing
of
because
overweight
global
of
its
and
issue.
population
the
incidence
4%.
previously
This
lost
of
means
non-obese
opposite
individuals
shows
shows
prevention
estimated
2009
individuals
incidence
incidence
for
•
prevalence
individuals
time
statistics:
problem,
is
(Hruby
,
from
high-risk
However
,
between
period
prevalence
This
death
Results
useful
distinction
for
cardiovascular
disease
(2011)—incidence
interventions.
became
complementary
of
comorbidities
•
obesity
with
and
rates
the
of
understanding
Prevalence
✪
risk
cardiovascular
cancer
.
that
RESEARCH
Essential
the
diabetes,
obesity
that
individuals
process
weight
also
and
in
the
during
US
the
became
occurs:
moved
4%
obese.
some
back
sample
year
to
in
of
Note
obese
the
non-obese
category
.
rate
•
Incidence
initiatives.
young
•
of
age
College
obesity
was
signicantly
higher
among
groups.
graduates
had
lower
incidences
of
obesity
than
Participants
groups
More
than
400,000
US
with
a
lower
education
level.
adults.
Conclusion
Method
and
procedure
The
The
researchers
used
data
from
an
ongoing,
the
US
telephone
survey
conducted
annually
by
high
incidence
state
importance
The
survey
used
random-digit
dialling
to
representative
was
was
dened
as
calculated
having
by
a
BMI
dividing
≥
the
30.
Incidence
number
of
developed
obesity
and
by
5.1.2
the
during
a
number
one-year
of
adults
period
who
Biopsychosocial
Biomedical
health
SNOITINIFED
cause
that
of
model
of
biological
(between
were
prevent
education
is
holistic
model
model
traditional
malfunction
model
of
of
a
are
useful
model
the
of
of
health
causality—a
wherein
A
inuences
be
health—the
reduced
B
of
in
(somatic)
causal
inuences
C,
its
C
forms
model
(BPS)
model
of
versus
the
psychological
the
(BPS)
model
research
and
health
practice
that
used
assumed
a
to
between
mind
factors.
model
claims
risk
Adults
with
group.
metric
complementary
the
sum
of
idea
its
that
part
the
and
so
whole
cannot
has
be
to
entirety
phenomena—experiencing
without
factors
a
physical
physical
cause,
due
to
only
can
be
philosophical
reduced
foundation
to
of
establish
to
idea
their
many
that
simple
research
determinants
of
complex
components;
studies
health
be
and
body
and
is
that
See
the
“The
reduced
biomedical
currently
health
is
accepted
and
social
factors).
See
“The
biopsychosocial
predominant
biopsychosocial
approach
to
the
treatment
of
obesity
was
fundamental
health
to
be
more
effective
than
less
holistic
approaches
in
to
the
which
effective
model”.
shown
BPS
be
well-being
Reductionism—the
A
The
to
women.
UNDERSTANDING
biomedical
biological
likely
young
epidemiological
symptoms
phenomena
biomedical
division
most
relationships
but
A
biopsychosocial
health
a
philosophical
to
Psychosomatic
health
pattern
B,
also
and
Holism—the
only
attempting
in
are
particularly
2008
it
The
shows
prevalence.
studied
(BPS)
Circular
The
obesity
adults,
psychological
ESSENTIAL
period
programmes.
who
illness
inuences
one-year
non-obese.
(BPS)
health—the
considered
Biopsychosocial
alternative
a
prevention
of
adults
to
2009)
to
young
Incidence
obesity
over
sample.
lower
Obesity
obesity
implementing
select
among
a
of
health
Initiatives
departments.
of
state-based
study
of
Nguyen
et
al
(2016)
model”.
Implications
and
The
has
criticism
of
the
BPS
model
alternative
multi-determined
BPS
model
some
important
implications:
the
(biological,
importance
of
subjective
experiences,
the
Health
necessity
to
psychology
107
recognize
the
idea
the
of
active
circular
role
of
the
causality
.
patient
See
in
treatment,
“Implications
of
and
the
Links
BPS
•
model”.
The
BPS
and
model
testable
is
an
scientic
inevitably
about
to
resort
how
everyday
far
overarching
model.
to
the
medical
idea
Concrete
reductionism.
model
has
practices.
There
made
See
rather
research
is
its
than
also
way
“Criticism
a
studies
a
concrete
•
topics
of
health
problems
(biological,
psychological
social)
Dispositional
zoom-in
concern
into
•
almost
other
Explanations
on
Protective
factors
and
health
psychological
and
risk
beliefs
(this
topic
is
a
explanations)
factors
actual
of
the
health
has
BPS
model”.
THE
The
in
BIOMEDICAL
traditional
the
strict
disease
leaves
factors
biomedical
division
primarily
no
room
may
MODEL
as
for
model
between
a
failure
the
inuence
idea
of
mind
and
body
and
within
the
body
.
The
that
health.
psychological
Accordingly
,
or
health
its
roots
model
is
seen
considers
researchers
model
However
,
social
universally
in
simply
claim
due
as
that
to
its
the
the
absence
tremendous
accepted
until
of
biomedical
the
disease.
model
successes
is
the
Many
reductionist.
model
was
1970s.
the
THEORY
THE
In
BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL
contrast
to
the
(BPS)
biomedical
accepted
that
illness
between
biological,
is
as
and
MODEL
model,
health
are
it
is
the
now
result
generally
of
interaction
physical health
psychological
and
social
factors.
This
disability
known
the
BPS
model
of
health.
It
was
pioneered
by
Biological
George
L
Engel
(1977).
The
model
is
a
holistic
alternative
genetic vulnerabilities
to
the
The
biomedical
BPS
idea
model
that
is
health
model.
a
paradigm
sciences
based
become
on
the
more
overarching
holistic
and
temperament
drug effects
less
IQ
dehumanizing.
Engel
did
not
deny
that
the
traditional
Mental
peers
self-esteem
biomedical
model
was
based
on
rigorous
science
and
led
health
to
major
advancements
in
medicine,
but
he
also
protested
Social
Psychological
family
the
tendency
of
clinicians
to
regard
patients
as
objects
and
relationships
family
ignore
their
subjective
experiences
and
interpretations.
As
a
coping skills
circumstances
result,
the
BPS
interacting
model
views
determinants
health
including
as
a
the
product
patient’
s
of
multiple
beliefs,
trauma
social
social skills
school
environment,
and
so
on.
Figure
5.2
In
with
line
dened
social
The
OF
THE
Borrell-Carrió,
Suchman
the
implications
•
important
The
patient’
s
along
may
role
play
a
in
psychosomatics
on
•
In
physical
any
causes
108
Unit
with
the
(the
Epstein
of
the
there
(2004)
BPS
well-being
some
of
contributing
5—Health
by
of
health
model,
“a
state
and
not
denition
of
should
of
circular
change
biomedical
development
inuence
noted
model.
experiences
objective
are
BPS
as
This
model
in
of
1948
the
complete
merely
has
the
not
WHO
absence
been
ofcially
physical,
mental
and
disease
or
of
changed
since
then.
MODEL
be
disease
of
they
through
psychological
factors
need
•
to
multiple
factors.
It
psychology
may
interacting
be
complicated
the
make
in
the
for
and
disease.
linear
Patient–clinician
patients
powerful.
usually
causality,
lifestyle,
aggravates
data;
symptoms).
disease
and
and
subjective
considered
BPS
the
health
inrmity”.
IMPLICATIONS
BPS
example,
the
a
change
However
,
to
approximations
interaction
process
of
should
disease
of
causes
lifestyle
plan
(“A
as
its
more
a
turn
treatments
causes
recognize
treatment
in
we
B”).
the
role
active
of
and
RESEARCH
Essential
Using
✪
model
a
for
Nguyen
et
al
(2016)—biopsychosocial
the
treatment
treatment
of
programme
obesity
is
based
effective
for
on
the
weight
investigate
designed
on
the
the
effectiveness
principles
of
of
the
a
treatment
BPS
treatment
but
Behavioural
interventions
loss.
habits
programme
and
to
the
themselves,
Aim
T
o
to
BPS
understanding
complex
approach
avoid
developing
Faulty
thinking
Weight
loss
is
sweets
were
new
pattern
about
eating
obesity
articial
aimed
at
sweeteners.
breaking
old
eating
ones.
Correct
less
model.
and
of
thinking
Weight
loss
(so
need
you
foods
is
spikes
pattern
about
to
lowering
know
insulin
what
levels
insulin
kind
and
of
eat
accordingly)
Method
Retrospective
review
of
data
from
a
weight
loss
I
programme
am
on
a
diet
I
am
is
at
an
outpatient
mindful
not
the
about
right
insulin
word
(“diet”
because
it
has
clinic.
the
connotation
of
deprivation
and
enjoyment
(enjoyment
is
hunger)
Participants
142
patients,
mean
age
40
years;
their
average
weight
at
I
the
enjoy
eating
I
eat
for
important
start
of
the
study
was
210.2
lbs
(95.3
in
life,
but
I
control
it
kg).
and
I
I
can
have
have
had
my
my
enjoyment
breakfast,
after
lunch
and
Procedure
dinner)
The
BPS
insulin
programme
with
thinking)
combined
cognitive
and
the
behavioural
behavioural
medical
therapy
therapy
(to
knowledge
(CBT)
break
(to
of
reframe
unhealthy
T
able
5.1
Key
thinking
patterns
reframed
eating
Results
habits).
•
Participants
were
taught
about
insulin
and
its
role
in
There
the
storage.
They
studied
the
food
groups
that
affect
was
advised
keep
insulin
to
limit
the
intake
of
these
insulin
products
in
10.8%
baseline
to
decrease
completing
in
the
weight
on
average
programme
over
from
86
days
and
(from
were
a
fat
order
210.2
lbs
to
187.4
lbs;
95.3
kg
to
85.0
kg).
to
•
Over
the
same
time,
BMI
decreased
from
34.6
to
30.1.
low.
Conclusion
Phentermine—a
drug
that
suppresses
appetite
while
A
maintaining
energy
and
alertness—was
prescribed
biopsychosocial
be
participants
the
and
programme
patterns.
T
able
CBT
to
techniques
help
5.1
were
participants
gives
examples
also
incorporated
change
of
the
their
key
effective
that
were
were
ve
day
.
meals
a
CRITICISM
The
idea
obvious
more
that
widely
asked
and
than
demonstrated
sociocultural
follow
that
MODEL
short
visits.
focus
only
The
variety
of
inuence
is
research
biological,
health
and
to
intuitively
a
It
is
following
model
is
concrete
rarely
effect
studies
establish
have
psychological
and
a
health-related
small
a
can
potentially
THE
T
o
BPS
needs
to
paradigm
for
a
be
taken
or
specic
measure
a
determine
see
everything
MODEL
how
the
BPS
we
will
•
explanations
into
overarching
idea
Note
provide
of
weight
aspects
such
loss
as
programmes
dieting,
a
holistic
combination
of
weight
approaches
effective.
will
not
we
and
the
of
us
effect,
IVs.
usually
of
give
a
clear
Conversely
,
As
have
but
a
in
we
result,
no
idea
an
can
only
when
choice
about
cause–
experiment
but
we
can
manipulate
it
comes
to
resort
to
to
reductionism.
BPS
be
seen
to
model
what
is
intuitively
extent
it
has
attractive,
actually
it
remains
made
everyday
medical
practices
around
the
its
way
world.
research
study
to
large
number
health-related
of
IN
with
everything,
but
point
out
that
a
lot
of
ideas
of
the
BPS
The
model
be
to
be
postulated
on
paper
,
but
when
it
comes
variables
behaviour
everyday
this
“sea
practice,
many
professionals
still
seem
to
and
the
biomedical
model
of
health.
of
RESEARCH
model
is
applied
(and
tested)
in
research,
•
dispositional
zoom-in
of
health
and
social)
problems
(biological,
•
on
protective
and
its
will
use
factors
and
psychological
and
risk
health
beliefs
(this
topic
is
a
explanations)
factors.
See
"5.2
Health
problems
sub-sections.
the
example
of
obesity
TIP
that
health,
may
monthly
rather
We
EXAM
obesity
with
account.
consider:
psychological
CBT
,
cause
form
While
assume
correlate
of
theory
.
possible
We
or
number
research,
to
that
majority
two
relationships.
continue
holistic.
or
more
researchers
•
the
one
correlations”
accepted
into
than
be
some
BPS
While
on
medication
to
•
even
starve
seems
approach
Many
to
•
the
treatment
settings,
with
behaviour.
However
,
the
thinking
schedule
never
multi-determined
humanistic
a
eating
BPS
previously.
factors
an
instructed
is
a
to
were
THE
illness
today
to
clinic
reframed.
They
OF
outpatient
into
seems
Participants
in
thinking
loss
patterns
approach
to
to
you
answer
can
use
research
exam
the
questions
material
evidence
on
from
supporting
the
these
your
BPS
model
three
of
topics
to
arguments.
Health
psychology
109
5.2
Health
5.2.1
problems
Biological
Brain
reward
responsible
SNOITINIFED
feelings
of
system—brain
for
cognitively
pleasure
Determinants
inuence
on
explanations
of
and
structures
processing
health
are
Ob
including
in
reward,
satisfaction
health—factors
health
that
of
and
problems
gene—obese
the
that
health-related
role
in
neurotransmitter
transmitting
messages
in
have
causal
Regional
behaviour
of
blood
that
the
plays
brain
an
hormone
that
is
involved
in
of
gene,
gene
used
to
as
a
in
mice;
associated
with
mutations
early
obesity
cerebral
ow
identied
are
a
blood
ow
specic
measure
(rCBF)—the
region
of
of
the
localization
amount
brain
of
in
brain
a
given
activity
important
reward
system
T
olerance—when
and
Leptin—a
ob
development
time;
Dopamine—a
mouse
regulating
requires
an
higher
individual
doses
to
gets
achieve
used
the
to
a
drug
same
level
of
energy
response
balance
by
ESSENTIAL
The
at
BPS
the
hunger
UNDERSTANDING
model
full
inhibiting
of
range
(“determinants
health
of
of
considers
variables
health”).
that
We
it
necessary
may
be
apply
to
causing
this
look
dopamine
disease
approach
to
biological
research
brain
are:
determinants
genetic
activation;
of
factors;
biological
obesity
leptin
often
and
processes
of
considered
insulin;
in
patterns
of
addiction.
obesity
at
least
in
a
is
a
hormone
that
signals
fat
to
the
brain.
twin
an
may
RNA
mean
lack
messenger
however
,
that
be
the
an
increase
it
is
problem,
in
of
for
not
but
leptin
regulation
the
the
how
ob
of
gene.
level
of
See
storage.
has
leptin
responsive
levels.
fat
It
as
brain
“The
been
role
such
obesity
THE
In
processes
because
ROLE
the
search
leptin
is
binds
to
a
fat
of
addiction
and
sugar
OF
LEPTIN
for
biological
promising
specic
factors
candidate.
receptors
may
lead
in
also
to
the
Leptin
is
there
DelParigi
people
might
are
to
to
are
et
regulation
of
energy
intake
involved
for
to
mediate
the
body's
to
expenditure.
response
to
is
a
messenger
RNA
for
the
ob
food
gene—a
leptin
using
mouse
models
of
obesity
and
determined,
in
factors
obesity
.
specic
it
Haworth
genetic
reward
also
has
for
to
et
al
(2008)
play
a
major
Additionally
,
genes
Haworth
(2005)
after
basis
et
using
specic
food
while
signals
that
to
system.
See
obesity
be
inherited,
demonstrated
role,
they
explaining
argued
et
al
beyond
those
that
(2008)
al
a
of
PET
pattern
fasting
scans
of
showed
brain
period.
behaviours
that
activation
This
related
shows
to
obese
in
response
the
overeating.
See
(2005)
overfeeding
the
brain
that
boosts
fat
is
them.
being
This
is
how
the
body
stored.
alter
Leptin
level
of
scientic
interest
in
leptin
increased
exponentially
is
Mantzoros
(1999)
discovered
that
administering
leptin
deprivation.
mice
with
a
mutation
to
the
ob
gene
(which
reduced
the
gene
amounts
discovered
brain
in
to
Leptin
the
of
after
believed
no
a
neurological
obesity
,
hormone
hypothalamus
and
that
See
al
have
tasting
The
the
to
addiction”.
degree.
variation
BMI.
that
production
a
of
is
leptin”.
responsible
Leptin
the
be
certain
of
DelParigi
Biological
linked
biologically
a
study
discovered,
receptors
of
is
Lower
regulate
levels
is
to
60–74%
that
Leptin
this
processes
obesity
.
If
The
and
“Biological
of
leptin
produced
naturally)
had
positive
effects
cloning
on
their
obesity
symptoms.
It
suggested
that
human
obesity
techniques.
may
by
also
be
linked
to
leptin
deciency
and
hence
treatable
medication.
However
,
only
a
further
minority
Mantzoros
have
investigations
of
(1999)
increased
obese
found
leptin
in
humans
that
levels,
this
are
most
which
area
in
showed
fact
obese
humans
prompts
that
leptin-decient.
the
actually
following
suggestions.
•
Most
cases
treatment
of
will
obesity
only
produce
be
leptin
effective
for
a
resistance,
small
so
number
leptin
of
individuals.
•
The
biological
leptin
Figure
5.3
A
normal-weight
mouse
and
a
genetically
obese
levels
stored
in
110
the
Unit
have
been
body:
found
fasting
5—Health
to
reect
dramatically
psychology
the
amount
depletes
the
rather
of
than
obesity
may
production
of
be
linked
leptin
(in
to
other
mouse
words,
Leptin
mechanism
receptors
of
fat
levels
but
of
the
leptin
it
is
not
fact
the
that
levels).
level
the
of
brain
leptin
does
that
not
is
the
problem,
respond
to
increased
BIOLOGICAL
All
food
causes
which
in
PROCESSES
general,
the
brain
creates
but
the
substances,
brain
to
regulate
feeling
✪
a
As
itself
and
to
release
pleasure.
As
reduce
the
et
and
of
food,
addiction
food
amount
al
fatty
released
dopamine,
with
consumption
Haworth
to
causes
of
food
the
the
to
in
response
reach
feeling
the
of
developing
in
twin
inuenced
by
investigate
heritability
of
intake.
pleasure
level
or
both
(2008)–twin
genetic
BMI
and
As
of
a
result,
dopamine
satisfaction).
we
require
(and
This
is
more
therefore
known
as
dopamine
study
of
obesity
Non-shared
studies,
extent
to
same
tolerance
understanding
evidenced
large
of
ADDICTION
high-sugar
system
excessive
RESEARCH
Essential
especially
reward
other
OF
obesity
are
to
Shared
factors.
environment
environment
Addictive
genetic
10 0
Aim
T
o
BMI
and
90
obesity
.
80
denialpxe
Method
T
win
study
.
ecnairaV
Participants
A
large
UK
pairs
at
pairs
10
at
years
7
years
sample
old
and
of
twins—more
more
than
than
3,500
2,000
same-sex
%
same-sex
representative
70
60
50
40
30
old.
20
10
Procedure
0
Parents
of
the
twins
lled
out
questionnaires
with
measures
BMI
of
the
children’
s
calculated
for
height
each
and
child.
weight.
Based
on
From
their
this
BMI,
data
BMI
categorized
into
groups
of
normal
weight,
obese.
BMI
(identical—MZ)
correlations
twins
were
between
then
Obesity
10
Years
5.4
Results
from
the
twin
study
(BMI
and
obesity)
overweight
Source:
and
BMI
Years
participants
Figure
were
Obesity
7
was
Haworth
et
al
(2008:
1588)
monozygotic
compared
to
BMI
Conclusion
correlations
between
dizygotic
(fraternal—DZ)
twins.
Obesity
and
genetically
BMI
are
to
a
determined.
large
The
extent,
fact
that
but
not
exclusively
,
heritability
of
obesity
Results
and
•
Results
were
similar
for
both
variables—obesity
normal
individual
variations
of
the
BMI
within
variation
within
the
population
are
so
similar
extreme
of
some
and
implies
normal
BMI
that
obesity
is
simply
a
quantitative
the
continuous
trait
and
that
there
are
no
specic
genes
for
population.
obesity
•
Genetic
inheritance
60–74%
of
✪
Obese
pattern
This
of
major
role,
that
brain
beyond
those
that
regulate
BMI.
explaining
et
al
(2005)—obesity
and
understanding
brain
shows
pattern
DelParigi
people
of
the
variation.
RESEARCH
Essential
played
(as
obesity
to
can
activation
a
to
lean
meal
be
in
of
brain
activation
Procedure
compared
response
patterns
people)
after
a
associated
response
to
have
a
prolonged
with
food
a
specic
fast.
specic
stimuli.
Participants
were
36-hour
fast.
cerebral
blood
experience
PET
given
was
ow
of
food.
in
rCBF
2
millilitres
used
(rCBF)
to
in
of
a
measure
response
liquid
meal
changes
to
this
in
after
a
regional
sensory
Results
Aim
Differences
T
o
compare
patterns
of
brain
activation
in
obese
and
the
individuals
following
the
sensory
experience
of
brain.
•
Method
was
used
to
(comparison
measure
the
of
pre-existing
In
particular
,
observed
obese
in
several
individuals
regions
of
demonstrated
(as
food.
compared
Quasi-experiment
were
lean
groups).
greater
lean
individuals):
increases
in
the
middle-dorsal
insula
and
the
midbrain
PET
•
variables.
to
greater
and
decreases
orbitofrontal
in
the
posterior
cingulate,
temporal
cortices.
Participants
T
able
21
obese
(BMI
>
35)
and
20
lean
(BMI
<
25)
5.2
gives
details
based
on
prior
knowledge
of
functions
individuals.
localized
in
these
areas.
Health
psychology
111
Area
Function
The
This
insular
cortex
The
midbrain
area
for
content
in
The
posterior
cingulate
This
cortex
a
orbitofrontal
area
lean
The
cortex
food
role
reaction
in
The
has
5.2
Areas
of
the
is
one
in
many
thirst.
activated
of
the
increasing
been
the
aspects
The
when
most
to
the
fat
ancient
overall
associated
brain
of
eating
middle-dorsal
is
with
detected
brain
excitation
in
on
sensation
including
particular
the
structures.
and
palate)
It
is
a
the
has
response
been
to
avour
,
associated
with
food
the
texture,
sensitivity
smell,
to
the
fat
.
part
of
the
brain
system
that
produces
dopamine
so
it
motivation.
processing
sensory
behaviour
insula
emotional
of
food
stimuli,
was
more
both
positive
“emotional”
and
in
negative.
obese
This
showed
individuals
and
that
more
the
neutral
individuals.
same
shown
and
(it
is
in
of
to
areas
be
associated
T
able
food
midbrain
plays
The
participates
hunger
brain
of
with
and
the
orbitofrontal
activated
an
their
in
response
overall
reward
cortex
to
a
that
were
symbolic
shown
monetary
to
be
value
active
gain
in
(and
obese
individuals
proportional
to
in
this
this
study
gain).
So
had
this
been
area
is
response.
functions
Conclusion
Obesity
Figure
is
associated
5.5
Source:
PET
showing
DelParigi
5.2.2
with
et
al
a
brain
(2005:
specic
pattern
response
to
sensory
brain
response
experience
of
that
is
not
conned
Dispositional
dropping
prevention
programme
Cognitive
restraint—a
SNOITINIFED
to
limit
food
explanations
factors
out
stable,
of
a
and
treatment
consciously
of
health
health
or
Health
in”
to
the
that
beliefs
can
inuence
also
an
inhibition;
an
episode
behaviour
,
including
individual
wide
that
range
of
inuence
ESSENTIAL
genetic
beliefs;
set-up,
dispositional
situational
behaviours
are
by
inuenced
But
variation
individual
are
there
(such
biological
is
also
variables
perceived
determinants
inuences
of
of
as
personality
factors
are
of
something
that
health
overweight
factors
as
in
inuence
and
interpreted.
health-related
both
112
Unit
we
can
behaviour—
quantify
of
this
“observed
variation”
that
is
the
explained
a
particular
model
to
power—the
predict
quantiable
behaviour
in
ability
real-life
of
a
scientic
settings
commonly
well
as
problems
and
obesity)
environmental
beliefs.
They
biological
explanations
of
factors
such
5—Health
as
involved
effects.
Personality
traits
factors
various
and
health
cognitive
beliefs”.
variables
mediating
and
obesity
environmental
a
meta-analysis,
Jokela
et
al
(2013)
demonstrated
that
Psychological
may
moderate
environmental
health
“Dispositional
also
between—
how
behaviour
and
See
have
environmental
conscientiousness
(as
related
risk
have
personality
focused
psychology
traits
a
personality
trait)
was
most
strongly
et
(2013)
the
to
a
lower
of
obesity
.
See
Jokela
al
factors.
a
and
longitudinal
study
,
Sutin
et
al
(2011)
demonstrated
on
that
dispositional
health-related
traits,
In
Psychological
in
differences;
individual’
s
In
stimuli
and
factors
determinants
Health-related
psychological
social
UNDERSTANDING
Psychological
factors.
wider
characteristics
the
model
and
a
context
Predictive
to
by
and
health
of
by
to
opposed
inuenced
health
individual
impulse
“internal”
attitudes
about
behaviours;
intake
of
factors—a
an
be
convictions
health
controlled
percentage
Dispositional
area.
problems:
beliefs—personal
illness
observed
“giving
particular
beliefs
Observed
Disinhibition—loss
one
food
cultural
intention
to
438)
Psychological
Attrition—gradual
of
health
the
combination
of
personality
traits
most
predictive
of
obesity
was
high
conscientiousness.
neuroticism
See
Sutin
and
et
al
extraversion
and
low
(2011)
Although
these
useful
explaining
the
Cognitive
One
is
of
that
food
the
question
commonly
suggested
individuals
(especially
fatty
crave
food)
psychological
food;
with
that
is,
pleasure
to
have
and
what
demonstrated
predicting
extent.
that
the
health-related
Reviews
and
HBM
is
behaviour
,
et
Craeynest
shown
that
et
al
test
(2008)
(IAT)
in
a
study
Critics
have
Zimmerman,
Vernberg
meta-analyses
1994)
the
predictive
power
of
the
HBM
is
have
quite
also
pointed
out
limitations
of
the
weak.
model
such
satisfaction.
involving
demonstrated
2006;
associate
ignoring
that
this
some
important
variables
and
assuming
that
an
people
association
al
explanations
they
and
(T
aylor
as
implicit
is
studies
variables
obese
However
,
for
is
are
rational
decision-makers.
See
“Evaluation
of
the
not
HBM”.
the
case.
Craving
fatty
foods
appears
normal
for
people.
It
An
may
be
that
obese
individuals
lack
inhibitory
control
(that
inuential
planned
the
ability
to
suppress
this
craving),
but
this
requires
See
Craeynest
et
al
psychological
factor
of
reasoned
contributing
to
the
individual’
s
related
health
research
and
study
health
different
See
were
also
for
Lewis
Lewis
showed
al
his
al
or
her
(2010)
that
indeed
moderately
et
of
et
demonstrated
risks
researchers
perception
risks.
in
these
and
weight
a
these
from
of
reality.
perceptions
severely
The
obese
weight
The
were
theory
as
a
result
by
a
set
of
of
of
of
of
from
2
is
(TRA).
“2.1.3
Cognitive
planned
planned
a
is
the
later
Y
ou
theory
of
extension
are
familiar
Thinking
and
approach
perceived
and
(TRA)
(TPB)
intention
attitudes,
behavioural
action
behaviour
behaviour
intention,
beliefs:
reasoned
models
“Unit
theory
The
and
individuals.
(2010)
beliefs:
action
theories
in
behaviour
Health
HBM
of
the
with
to
decision-
behaviour”.
and
qualitative
perceptions
deviating
that
the
which
obesity
making”
is
to
(TPB),
(2008)
both
Another
behaviour
further
theory
research.
alternative
is,
is
perceived
control.
and
the
(TPB)
views
in
behaviour
turn
social
See
“The
theory
of
predicted
norms
theory
of
planned
(TPB)”.
health-related
Both
the
theories
have
been
criticized
for
their
exclusive
behaviour
focus
The
large
number
of
cognitive
variables
that
contribute
on
health
engenders
a
need
for
an
that
will
bring
them
all
together
them
to
to
better
the
most
also
shown
health
models
the
are
reasoned
(TPB).
The
The
result
belief
belief
of
a
set
of
behaviour).
Rosenstock
model
the
of
motivation
views
grouped
also
the
theory
planned
by
its
of
behaviour
predictive
and
takes
and
behaviour
two
perceived
into
cues
to
and
Kok
one
third
as
of
moderator
See
(1974)
power
of
the
HBM
was
investigated
in
a
the
Deshpande,
Basil
and
Basil
(2009).
These
of
a
good
overall
t
of
the
criticized
also
pointed
out
that
the
relative
for
biological
of
belief
have
were
implications
Deshpande,
different
for
Basil
and
DISPOSITIONAL
for
designing
Basil
men
is
by
with
the
factors.
Using
a
of
factors
are
must
situational
Examples
•
•
of
AND
women,
which
strategies.
HEALTH
dispositional
very
factors
genetic
factors
broad
factors
to
the
•
stable
•
attitudes.
that
the
TPB
variation
obesity).
See
in
model
explains
health-related
Godin
and
Kok
health
helpful
same
on
sort
explanations.
be
rarely
that,
beliefs
in
health.
of
health-related
However
,
reductionism
For
example,
incorporates
while
and
summarizing
the
BPS
the
that
biological
is
are
can
research
model
inuence
they
in
often
be
the
seen
area
variables.
necessary
The
as
ideology
driving
research,
a
specic
research
the
be
and
intentionally
quantify
their
reductionist
in
to
effects.
“Back
See
order
to
isolate
the
of
BPS
factors”.
may
See
BELIEFS
are:
beliefs
beliefs
are
stable
beliefs
that
manifest
and
in
a
variety
of
situations.
They
are
situational
beliefs
that
arise
distinct
momentarily
and
can
be
easily
in
a
specic
changed.
inuences.
A
number
of
dispositional
health-related
(the
traits
(dispositional)
TPB
See
individual,
environmental
factors
predispositions
personality
HBM.
categorization,
internal
comprise
dispositional
to
factors
interaction
situation
and
the
HBM
from
dispositional
than
data.
themselves
situational
power
(2009)
FACTORS
inuenced
to
the
model
of
been
the
Dispositional
Behaviour
However
,
study
contributions
and
factors.
researchers
model
prevention
showed
observed
limited
models
may
model:
components
suggested
TPB”.
the
BPS
have
in
variables
They
of
psychological
study
demonstrated
the
models
overarching
by
additional
predictive
(1996)
(not
the
behaviour
effectiveness
action.
to
Overall,
reason
Predictive
been
(1996)
categories
account
of
about
Back
into
include
better
Godin
behaviours
behaviour”.
health
has
inuential
(HBM)
illness
It
(HBM),
theory
characterized
(HBM)
the
of
health-related
beliefs
the
health
of
Three
model
model
threat
variables:
be
of
(perceived
health
and
can
“Models
health
belief
(TRA)
model
See
health
the
health
action
Each
power.
behaviour.
it
predict
“Evaluation
individuals’
and
integrated
has
model
variables
to
expand
determining
cognitive
belief
changing
behaviour
.
that
your
you
can
health
An
beliefs
example
succeed
in
is
can
inuence
health
becoming
self-efcacy
healthier
by
lifestyle).
Health
psychology
113
RESEARCH
Essential
Jokela
with
a
al
(2013)—meta-analysis
lower
risk
of
(as
a
of
personality
extraversion,
understanding
Conscientiousness
✪
et
personality
trait)
is
and
associated
traits
and
neuroticism,
openness
obesity
agreeableness,
to
experience.
ve
personality
conscientiousness
obesity
.
Results
One
Aim
T
o
investigate
the
the
development
association
and
between
persistence
of
personality
traits
of
these
shown
and
to
play
self-control,
obesity
.
a
role
Meta-analysis.
was
lower
obesity
risk
in
•
lower
obesity
risk
in
period
and
Conscientious
adherence
associated
•
follow-up
traits—conscientiousness—was
obesity
.
orderliness
conscientiousness
Method
in
to
reects
social
high
norms.
High
with:
general
initially
of
5.4
non-obese
individuals
(a
years)
Participants
•
78,931
men
and
women,
mean
age
50
greater
likelihood
of
reversion
to
non-obese
in
initially
years.
obese
individuals.
Procedure
Conclusion
Combined
data
on
the
participants
the
was
longitudinal.
was
used.
A
sub-set
of
Conscientiousness
studies
The
average
follow-up
period
that
these
studies
was
5.4
is
associated
Big
Five
was
model
assessed
of
the
with
only
broad
obesity
.
personality
However
,
this
trait
shows
that
years.
dispositional
Personality
is
in
using
personality
,
questionnaires
which
includes
built
the
on
ve
the
traits
persistence
factors
of
play
a
role
both
in
the
development
and
obesity
.
of
Traits
Facets
friendliness,
gregariousness,
assertiveness,
Extraversion
activity
level,
trust,
excitement-seeking,
morality,
altruism,
cheerfulness
cooperation,
Agreeableness
modesty,
self-efficacy,
The
Big
Five
sympathy
orderliness,
dutifulness,
Conscientiousness
achievement-striving,
anxiety,
anger,
self-discipline,
depression,
cautiousness
self-consciousness,
Neuroticism
immoderation,
Openness
to
imagination,
experience
Figure
5.6
The
Big
Five
RESEARCH
Essential
High
✪
associated
et
al
(2011)—longitudinal
with
is
and
the
study
of
data
understanding
conscientiousness
interests,
adventurousness,
intellect,
emotionality,
liberalism
traits
Sutin
neuroticism
artistic
vulnerability
extraversion
combination
and
of
up
low
traits
most
strongly
personality
used
to
32
in
the
traits
study
assessments
assessments
of
and
spanned
of
obesity
more
height
and
than
50
weight
years,
and
up
with
to
16
personality
.
adiposity
.
Personality
the
Big
traits
Five
were
model
of
assessed
with
personality
.
As
a
questionnaire
Figure
5.6
built
shows,
on
this
Aim
model
T
o
investigate
whether
there
is
a
concurrent
groups
personality
and
adiposity;
whether
uctuations
in
adiposity
(across
the
personality
neuroticism,
traits
into
extraversion,
ve
large
independent
conscientiousness,
personality
agreeableness
predicts
all
association
domains:
between
adult
life
and
openness
to
experience.
Each
of
these
span).
general
traits
contains
a
number
of
more
specic
sub-traits.
Method
Longitudinal
study
,
Results
correlational.
Concurrent
Participants
1,988
•
volunteers.
associations
Overweight
scales
of
and
obese
neuroticism
participants
and
on
conscientiousness.
At
the
had
extraversion
higher
and
scores
lower
Procedure
•
The
the
114
study
began
Baltimore
Unit
in
1958.
The
Longitudinal
5—Health
researchers
Study
of
used
Aging.
psychology
The
data
level
of
more
specic
sub-traits,
overweight
from
and
obese
individuals
scored
and
excitement-seeking
higher
on
impulsivity
longitudinal
(among
some
other
on
scores
traits).
Obese
participants
emotion”),
Longitudinal
but
also
less
tended
disciplined
to
be
happier
(“positive
Impulsivity
(“self-discipline”).
adiposity
was
over
also
associated
with
a
greater
increase
in
time.
associations
Conclusion
•
Individuals
who
were
more
impulsive
had
greater
This
uctuations
in
weight
over
time.
By
contrast,
research
treatment
who
scored
high
on
conscientiousness
were
able
and
maintain
a
steady
Individuals
high
in
low
antagonism)
on
agreeableness
increased
more
in
(or
,
✪
It
is
individual
of
satisfaction.
intuitive
results:
“normal”
for
all
inhibiting
this
suggested
obesity
comes
to
is
et
associate
may
be
people,
natural
BMI
over
the
design
For
of
example,
impulsivity
and
low
on
with
conscientiousness
programmes
schedules.
al
one
(2008)—craving
for
food
but
case
for
craving
effective
food
when
feelings
people
to
pleasure
are
for
less
or
food
•
is
capable
for
as
measure
menu
in
a
planning
group
and
setting
regular
may
and
be
introverts.
accurately
the
there
high-arousal
emotional
one
by
was
using
possible
“fat
Reaction
stimuli
one
as
categories
“calm”.
whether
for
control
into
and
than
any
and
stimulus
food”,
times
implicit
fat
associations—participants
(presented
reaction.
quickly
“active”
Explicit
of
extraverts
pictures
between
counter-
craving
stress
inhibitory
classify
food”,
the
of
and
words
cognitive
produces
that
obese
the
food
with
research
the
of
may
Interventions
time.
“lean
were
used
association
food.
rated
food
presentation
pictures
software)
for
arousal.
Results
Aim
T
o
on
meal
to
that
craving
However
,
it
high
such
understanding
determinants
and
Craeynest
commonly
for
programmes.
conversely
,
more
Essential
implications
weight.
scoring
RESEARCH
have
prevention
to
individuals
•
may
participants
compare
food
and
weight
implicit
arousal
and
in
explicit
groups
of
associations
overweight
between
and
fat
•
Counter
IAT
normal-
to
results
the
participants.
teenagers.
food
was
than
with
hypothesis,
between
there
overweight
However
,
associated
for
both
was
and
no
groups
signicantly
difference
in
normal-weight
of
more
participants
with
high
fat
arousal
Method
Quasi-experiment:
comparison
of
pre-existing
low
arousal.
groups.
•
The
same
both
result
groups
was
rated
obtained
pictures
of
for
fat
self-report
food
as
measures:
more
Participants
emotionally
12–16-year-old
overweight
some
could
of
whom
be
and
normal-weight
categorized
as
arousing
than
pictures
of
lean
food.
individuals,
obese.
Conclusion
The
researchers
concluded
that
associating
fat
food
with
Procedure
arousal
The
following
variables
were
measured
and
compared
and
•
associations—an
normal-weight
the
implicit
association
test
used
food
and
that
quantied
arousal.
Prejudice
and
as
French
example,
(such
(for
as
fruit)
✪
these
fries)
were
association
explanation
tasks
and
six
six
“lazy”).
et
al
of
“Unit
of
6
see
of
fat
“lean
and
(for
words
low-arousal
words
were
required
(2010)—health
and
severely
their
weight
If
anticipation
to
beliefs
fat
of
the
urge
to
eat
fat
pleasure
from
the
process)
is
food
not
people.
It
should
be
something
else
weight.
all
people
consumption?
be
lack
when
of
impulse.
and
The
act
This
obesity
to
it
but
because
cause
everyone
only
they
requires
Australian
between
can
high
that
this
experiences
overweight
cannot
further
arousal
excessive
hypothesized
control:
food,
hypothesis
in
process
researchers
fat
on
associations
other
inhibitory
exposed
individuals
show
what
or
inhibit
food
could
arousal
obese
their
rst
testing.
adults
Background
obese
and
excessive
food,
individuals
have
different
Research
perceptions
of
overweight
causes
nearly
and
food
food”
high-arousal
Participants
“6.2.2
Human
understanding
Moderately
so
between
IAT
s
pictures
with
“nervous”)
Lewis
in
pictures
coupled
“calm”,
RESEARCH
Essential
In
“excited”,
example,
the
an
discrimination”
relationships”.
(such
For
people,
(IAT)
that
was
for
participants.
unique
Implicit
“normal”
in
(and
overweight
is
associated
health
shows
that
obese
individuals
often
underestimate
risks.
their
weight
possible
and
health
as
a
risks,
consequence
which
in
turn
deny
some
affects
of
their
the
behaviour
.
Aim
At
T
o
compare
health
beliefs
in
moderately
and
severely
the
same
time,
most
prior
research
studies
treated
obese
obese
individuals
as
a
homogeneous
group,
ignoring
the
possible
adults.
impact
of
severity
of
obesity
on
health
beliefs.
Method
Procedure
Qualitative
study
.
In-depth
141
Australian
(BMI
≥
40)
semi-structured
conducted
Participants
adults
obesity
.
with
moderate
(BMI
≥
30)
and
severe
was
60–90
subject
to
with
all
minutes.
content
telephone
participants.
The
The
interviews
analysis.
As
the
interviews
duration
were
an
interview
transcribed
transcripts
Health
were
of
were
and
read
psychology
115
and
re-read
and
researchers
the
two
emergent
also
noted
weight
themes
differences
identied
and
and
grouped,
Conclusion
similarities
between
Moderately
groups.
problem,
obese
individuals
attribute
empowered
to
it
to
tend
to
underestimate
environmental
change
weight.
factors,
Severely
and
obese
the
feel
individuals
are
Results
more
The
commonalities
included
•
two
They
believed
changing
•
Failed
T
able
in
major
that
their
shows
Moderately
between
the
two
in
their
perceptions,
but
they
are
also
more
groups
powerless.
Prevention
and
treatment
take
differences
into
account.
programmes
should
themes.
they
were
behaviours
attempts
5.3
responses
accurate
to
lose
some
of
personally
and
losing
weight
the
key
obese
responsible
these
for
weight.
decreased
motivation.
differences.
Severely
obese
participants
participants
described
themselves
“overweight”
distanced
did
as
used
“fat”
themselves
stereotypes
obese
and
described
from
associated
medical
terminology
(“obese”)
themselves
stereotypical
with
in
language
people
not
weight
believe
posed
that
a
acknowledged
their
serious
of
health
the
the
seriousness
risk
risk
believed
weight
that
is
their
caused
environmental
felt
and
a
responsibility
The
main
weight
T
able
5.3
Research
al
change
of
the
to
social
OF
and
such
Dalle
determining
need
to
for
to
an
better
from
to
of
variables
integrated
predict
et
Galugi
cognitive
model
al
that
the
to
lose
health
risks.
groups
(2008),
and
will
Lewis
Marchesini
variables
health
of
only
BEHAVIOUR
discovered,
individuals’
sense
motivation
two
health-related
are
a
that
were
the
and
responsibility
main
weight
Craeynest
contribute
such
variety
as
Grave,
a
more
The
responses
demonstrate
the
added
them
lose
pressure.
in
powerless
personal
HEALTH-RELATED
studies
(2010)
felt
their
personal
encouraged
Differences
MODELS
et
to
sense
motivation
was
themselves
factors
empowered
weight,
blamed
excessive
by
that
may
behaviour
.
the
more
bring
Such
(2014)
However
,
all
of
(HBM),
there
them
models
Three
is
a
together
behaviour
.
of
the
the
planned
have
most
theory
of
combination
by
of
proposed
(
TPB).
predictive
variables
individual
ones
reasoned
behaviour
characterized
observed
been
inuential
and
are
action
Each
of
power:
included
variation
in
health
(TRA)
these
to
in
extensively
the
what
the
and
researched.
belief
the
models
extent
model
health-related
model
theory
can
can
be
the
explain
the
behaviour?
THEORY
ROSENSTOCK
The
health
originally
to
prevention
model
(1974)—HEAL
TH
belief
model
explain
why
programmes,
there
are
two
(HBM)
people
BELIEF
was
failed
particularly
major
designed
to
for
predictors
MODEL
take
in
part
the
in
tuberculosis.
of
health
(HBM)
1950s
Effects
•
perceived
threat
perceived
Perceived
of
the
cues
In
•
health
this
consists
of
of
a
the
health
perceived
susceptibility
(“How
•
perceived
severity
get
beliefs
So,
effectiveness
about
the
idea
behaviours
that
the
is
if:
that
they
health
associated
116
costs
Unit
with
of
a
(barriers)
it,
likely
how
health
and
individuals
feel
of
am
bad
I
two
to
will
this
is
will
are
of
engage
by
effective
behaviour
5—Health
behaviour
benets
threatened
behaviour
motivation
to
action
are
health
behaviour.
advice
from
beliefs:
get
predictors
are
moderated
by:
(self-efcacy).
various
events
the
it
that
in
of
may
trigger
noticing
health
this
a
family
member
and
public
symptoms,
health
campaigns.
of
behaviour
.
illness;
while
psychology
include
motivation
is
the
overall
dispositional
readiness
to
be?”).
consists
this
against
low
Examples
it?”)
engage
Perceived
major
behaviour:
Health
I
two
action
behaviour
.
combination
•
(“If
to
illness
effectiveness
threat
these
•
Cues
•
of
disease
they
think
illness;
benets
costs
are
high.
in
health
personality
attentive
to
behaviours.
traits
their
in
the
health
As
part
of
population,
and
some
the
normal
variation
some
people
are
less.
more
Perceived
threat
Perceived
of
the
illness
susceptibility
Cues
Perceived
to
action
severity
Health
Perceived
effectiveness
health
of
the
behaviour
Health
Perceived
costs
Perceived
Figure
5.7
motivation
(barriers)
benefits
HBM
factors
affecting
health
diseases
behaviour
fear
The
HBM
can
be
(such
used
as
both
to
exercise
predict
and
behaviour
dieting)
and
to
of
such
appeals.
of
obesity
,
to
prevent
obesity
.
is
factor
For
example,
the
fact
itself
a
risk
RESEARCH
for
Deshpande,
college
Essential
developing
a
Basil
range
The
HBM
demonstrated
and
Basil
(2009)—HBM
an
thus
Simply
health
and
DV
in
increasing
educating
risks
of
healthy
a
good
overall
t
with
data,
the
study
HBM-based
was
operationalized
we
may
be
increase
used
the
in
perceived
the
probability
people
about
the
of
health
scientically
obesity
does
the
same
job.
eating
habits
among
the
as
likelihood
a
of
eating
combination
healthily
,
and
it
of
as
self-report
by
disease
students
was
✪
heart
appeals
of
understanding
demonstrated
or
fear
that
established
obesity
diabetes
design
behaviours.
strategies
as
Through
obese
threat
individuals
behaviour
items
such
as
“I
intend
to
eat
a
nutritious
diet
survey
.
most
of
the
time
in
the
next
two
weeks”.
Aim
Results
T
o
investigate
college
how
health
beliefs
impact
eating
behaviours
of
•
The
•
In
HBM
survey;
a
correlational
study
.
Participants
A
convenience
Canadian
in
the
of
194
aged
study
undergraduate
18–25.
was
The
students
average
BMI
of
at
a
of
own
the
•
23.
college
life
decisions
students
and
number
their
of
is
usually
for
highly
inuence
the
implies
rst
relevant
on
survey
,
independent
mostly
Components
of
as
the
starting
time,
for
eating
OF
Research
such
studies
that
people’
s
•
the
HBM
health
is
T
aylor
et
quite
al
weak
project
a
so
the
study
in
was
HBM
able
in
is
most
and
to
make
The
population
of
signicantly
predicted
the
perceived
diet.
In
effectiveness
of
eating
a
healthy
diet,
along
The
barriers
eating
relative
in
(costs),
the
predicted
next
two
contributions
differed
between
of
the
turn,
perceived
with
likelihood
of
weeks.
these
males
factors
and
into
healthy
females.
HBM
healthy
to
health
individual
a
all
reected
in
seven-point
However
,
that
areas
Basil
in
the
of
Likert
the
into
scale.
survey
.
to
a
the
helpful
in
explaining
behaviour
HBM
revealed
deserve
campaigns.
For
the
of
severity
among
observed
college
variations
of
students.
gender
should
be
on
tailored
differences,
females
not
healthy
these
eating
increasing
eating
men
and
campaigns
healthy
their
promotion
diets.
should
For
perceptions
focus
males
of
the
on
focus
susceptibility.
The
health
also
have
of
available
predictive
in
a
that
24%
means
into
that
of
the
observed
after
account,
behaviour
•
research
the
76%
remain
why
these
The
model
predictive
than
the
factors
is
ignoring
which
a
the
HBM
(such
power
as
in
several
that
included
focused
on
from
the
in
to
so
the
cognitive
of
actually
health
it
is
not
clear
model.
factors
environmental
point
limitations.
these
self-efcacy)
relation
components,
not
surrounding
limitation
has
demonstrated
core
are
mainly
(beliefs),
is
that
studies
components
larger
behaviours
is
behaviours.
similar
found
of
power
argued
research
additional
studies,
taken
have
Some
predictive
(1994)
This
•
extent?
average
been
Critics
exact
review
have
(2009)
predicting
what
HBM’
s
behaviour
.
in
Basil
and
health-related
research
an
the
but
Vernberg
differences
and
explaining
helpful,
explain
components
was
eating
health
incorporated
on
conducted
30
were
Deshpande,
claimed
spanning
variation
of
data.
HBM
helpful
(2006)
Zimmerman
HBM
as
is
behaviour
.
and
were
THE
important—it
evidence
•
the
behaviour
.
measures
questions
HBM
EVALUATION
power
with
susceptibility
healthy
eating
Procedure
show
t
a
women
the
overall
perceived
eating
Since
A
good
Conclusion
to
food
college
beliefs
a
severity
,
of
healthy
Background
T
ransitioning
cues
perceived
effectiveness
perceived
sample
university
,
participants
your
demonstrated
particular
,
and
Method
An
HBM
students.
view
inuences,
of
the
BPS
model.
•
The
model
also
assumes
decision-makers
cold
driven
cost-benet
that
in
people
their
are
health
rational
behaviour
by
a
analysis.
unexplained.
Health
psychology
117
THEORY
THE
THEORY
These
two
OF
theories
decision-making
related
REASONED
have
in
behaviour
.
a
been
variety
proposed
of
However
,
ACTION
to
domains,
they
have
(TRA)
explain
not
been
only
AND
THE
THEORY
human
health-
two
in
health
psychology
as
sets
introduction
to
the
decision-making”
an
in
“Unit
TPB
see
2
TRA
best
and
(Fishbein
that
the
beliefs—attitudes
social
TPB
by
1967)
the
“2.1.3
Thinking
Cognitive
argues
presence
behavioural
(TPB)
(“behavioural
beliefs”)
and
norms.
essentially
and
approach
to
one
control
more
(Ajzen
Bandura’
s
was
an
extension
that
of
a
intention
future
behaviours
behavioural
is
in
turn
are
intention,
predicted
by
In
both
to
these
combination
both
belief
dimension
1985).
work
self-efcacy
predicted
BEHAVIOUR
extensively
behaviour”.
The
PLANNED
of
this
framework
that
well.
added
For
of
perceived
The
applied
OF
on
be
This
a
was
it—perceived
to
self-efcacy
an
important
models
of
to
a
at
of
extent
time,
predictor
behavioural
number
large
that
prior
behavioural
of
intention
beliefs,
due
which
future
is
to
showed
behaviour
.
essentially
this
is
why
a
they
are
models
Attitudes
Perceived
social
Behavioural
Behaviour
norms
intention
Perceived
behavioural
Figure
5.8
control
TPB
factors
EVALUATION
The
TRA
and
cognitive
and
one
OF
TPB
THE
have
variables:
may
affecting
claim
health
behaviour
TPB
been
criticized
they
talk
about
that
there
may
for
their
focus
“perceived”
be
some
on
social
social.
norms,
the
There
TPB
facts
that
are
not
perceived
by
the
individual
yet
on
the
individual's
behaviour
.
Such
factors
in
the
models
that
emphasize
the
cognitive
there
Essential
✪
Across
provides
over
and
Kok
range
of
health
better
(1996)—predictive
explanation
Correlations
are
(about
one
consistent
the
TPB
third)
with
of
what
the
by
of
the
that
behaviours
than
Godin
the
between
around
include
whether
additional
or
not
variables.
the
than
TPB
the
is
a
better
TRA,
predictor
which
the
HBM
(T
aylor
et
al
in
turn
2006).
This
is
is
and
TPB
Kok
for
(1996)
health-related
intention
and
perceived
intention
and
behaviour:
behaviours
behavioural
control:
observed
•
between
0.46.
predicted
Collectively
by
debate
to
0.46
model
is
evidence
predictor
power
•
behaviours
of
the
understanding
a
good
variation.
Godin
is
health-related
supported
RESEARCH
lot
are
a
ignored
a
extended
exert
of
inuence
been
be
observable
Overall,
social
has
should
the
rst
three
variables
explained
32%
to
46.8%
model.
in
behavioural
the
Procedure
and
domain
intention
of
eating
(the
lowest
behaviours,
estimate
the
highest
was
in
obtained
oral
in
hygiene
results
behaviours).
Godin
and
existing
Kok
(1996)
evidence
for
carried
the
out
efcacy
a
of
systematic
the
TPB
in
review
of
explaining
Conclusion
and
predicting
health-related
behaviours.
In
a
synthesis
of
The
56
research
correlations
•
•
118
studies
established
the
overall
overall
conclusion
from
the
study
was
that
the
TPB
could
average
explain
about
one
third
related
behaviours.
of
the
observed
variations
in
health-
as:
between
between
Unit
they
intention
intention
and
and
5—Health
attitudes:
perceived
At
the
same
time
there
was
considerable
0.46
social
psychology
norms:
dispersion
of
behaviour
is
results
depending
0.34
predicted
exactly
.
on
which
health-related
BACK
TO
In
of
light
THE
the
behaviour
as
BPS
the
Roughly
,
social
exposed
to
a
example,
some
reward
or
model,
factors
may
a
sensitive
can
an
of
that
the
to
view
environment
fatty
foods.
inuence
more
cues
of
FACTORS
of
leptin)
satiety
.
by
biological
variables.
where
Certain
metabolic
aroused
of
OF
health-related
interaction
regulation
be
to
INTERACTION
complex
create
exist
brains
less
we
of
number
through
people’
s
MODEL:
result
large
predispositions
(for
BPS
we
are
has
where
genetic
cause
processes
of
and
this
causes
food-related
environmental
and
biological
However
,
variables
there
is
variables
(beliefs)
that
can
models.
directly
the
organism
reacts
to
the
environmental
layer
are
described
in
belief
models
at
the
assumed
same
rarely
is
true
of
to
for
one
by
for
example,
reductionism
be
the
primary
research
incorporate
interaction
factors
behaviour
,
sort
in
biological
between
the
area
variables
factors
rather
one.
study
that
for
combines
example,
psychological
investigate
the
and
role
biological
of
variables
self-efcacy
inuence
stimuli.
(such
They
are
a
of
as
behavioural
control,
cognitive
variable)
in
mediating
These
the
mediators
The
on
between
a
(perceived
how
health-related
entirely
variables
considering
could,
mediators—cognitive
on
almost
behaviour
.
look
than
inuences
based
biological
of
belief
and
A
the
been
HBM,
response
of
individuals
with
low
and
high
leptin
resistance
TRA,
(biological
variable)
to
increased
availability
of
high-fat
foods
TPB).
(socio-environmental
However
,
their
it
is
extremely
complex
5.2.3
Social
SNOITINIFED
Added
its
of
a
an
most
with
study
multiple
other
.
explanations
or
and
syrups
processing
added
(does
factors
Investigation
not
of
to
be
very
would
health
food
include
in
of
difcult
be
to
difcult
implement,
to
However
,
and
the
such
a
study
complex
would
interactions
quantify
.
problems
during
Energy
naturally
a
density—the
particular
weight
kilocalories
per
of
amount
food
of
energy
(typically
stored
measured
in
in
gram)
UNDERSTANDING
sedentary
Foods
to
the
to
each
sugars)
ESSENTIAL
are
with
sugar—sugars
preparation
occurring
T
wo
difcult
interaction
variable).
important
lifestyle
added
individual’
s
sugars
SES
social
and
determinants
consumption
tend
status.
to
See
be
of
cheaper
,
“Social
of
obesity
added
so
were
sugars.
this
links
determinants
replaced
labour
was
by
imported
gradually
canned
replaced
by
products,
desk
jobs.
and
See
physical
Curtis
(2004)
of
Of
course,
there
is
a
much
greater
variety
of
environmental
obesity”.
factors
This
is
evident,
obesity
been
epidemic
attributed
SOCIAL
The
in
to
many
from
tiny
the
states
westernization
currently
of
Oceania.
processes:
OF
reported
This
local
broad
has
environment
to
overweight
and
us
lifestyle
the
are
and
amount
both
social
groups
research
is
encouraged
of
added
factors
by
sugar
that
in
may
our
social
•
food
A
and
Peters
out
factors
see
us
against
obesity:
that
humans
contribute
to
evolution
does
in
increase
amount
protect
them
against
body
of
the
in
type
added
primary
have
evolved
the
against
most
body
weight
important
weight
gain
social
loss,
but
nothing
be
lifestyle
and
the
when
food
determinants
type
of
of
is
abundant.
obesity
are
sedentary
lifestyle
means
less
consumed
food
we
of
from
energy
food
spent,
in
energy
may
spent;
become
which
case
much
the
stored
by
the
body
screentime
in
the
activities,
form
of
using
a
fat.
car
the
amount
larger
excess
than
energy
Sedentary
to
rest
and
lack
of
exercise.
Access
Advances
and
availability
factors
that
of
additional
factors”.
screen
contribute
to
of
consume
calories.
processed
exceed
added
our
sugars
may
Given
food
and
everyday
is
soft
lead
the
to
high
drink,
needs.
(SSBs).
drinks
Added
or
sugars
most
processed
products
such
can
as
chips
or
ketchup.
Added
sugars
pasta
are
called
“empty
calories”
because
they
do
not
value.
products
with
determinant
of
added
obesity
sugar
may
because
be
food
considered
high
the
added
sugar
tends
to
be
cheaper
and
one’
s
SES
will
the
type
of
food
that
the
consumed.
Drewnowski
behaviours
claimed
energy
density
of
food
is
commute,
in
technology
entertainment
related
to
its
cost—diets
based
on
added
sugars
and
fats
tend
to
be
cheaper
than
more
healthy
diets
are
based
environmental
in
may
of
beverages
nutritive
to
social
and
transportation,
we
for
of
inversely
passive
in
potato
any
(2004)
include
of
sugars
source
found
determines
be
food
and
protective
consume.
in
amount
and
two
T
wo
a
energy
obesity
Risk
the
additional
a
•
A
For
to
have
sedentary
from
mechanisms
sometimes
of
above.
inuence
consumption
consumption
sauces,
defend
that
apart
not
also
to
obesity
,
mentioned
“5.2.4
sugar-sweetened
protect
to
food
calorie
point
factors
support,
of
an
obesity
.
(1998)
of
change
The
Hill
contribute
OBESITY
T
ype
that
can
environmental
foods
understanding
sedentary
available
example,
DETERMINANTS
Essential
✪
for
that
on
lean
meats,
vegetables,
fruit
and
sh.
obesity
.
Health
psychology
119
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
during
(2004)—obesity
epidemic
rates
high.
and
in
This
after
demanding
many
can
the
jobs
island
be
were
states
attributed
Second
World
traded
in
the
Pacic
Oceania
understanding
Obesity
extremely
Curtis
for
in
to
War:
desk
Oceania
Large
are
are
for
physically
imported
and
still
numbers
westernization
jobs,
islands
desk
jobs,
were
replaced
by
imported
canned
face
(2004)
some
Nauru,
of
reports
the
Samoa,
that
highest
the
Cook
the
island
levels
of
Islands
obesity
in
T
onga
the
of
Oceania
world.
rates
of
rural
been
reported
to
reach
as
high
as
In
diet
have
75%.
The
two
and
factors
a
are
believed
transition
to
the
to
be
a
western
of
the
Vanuatu,
or
taken
under
Australia
and
the
islands
T
uvalu,
and
after
need
the
for
in
Fiji,
Oceania
Nauru
protection
France
war
by
during
food
domestic
aid
Kiribati)
such
the
decrease
shing
these
and
are
in
been
farming
replaced
by
In
fact,
is
that
within
higher
groups
obesity
in
these
that
rates
urban
tiny
have
areas
island
and
states,
maintained
compared
to
lower
a
western
in
traditional
populations.
personnel
based
World
War
in
the
Pacic
introduced
islands
the
during
islanders
to
and
the
after
western
physical
Pitcairn,
were
countries
Second
from
have
countries.
traded
and
caused
rapid
changes.
T
raditional
islanders’
food
diet.
(examples
and
show
obesity
lower
Second
(such
Many
these
main
lifestyle
activity
products
on
have
obesity
the
contributory
also
of
areas.
Military
have
domestic
dependent
populations
local
populations
and
and
island
foods.
prevalence
Curtis
the
food.
Observations
products
economically
in
World
the
farming.
These
USA,
War
.
countries
have
During
islands
to
in
by
rice,
a
high
to
and
meat,
sugar
,
technology
and
new
physical
and
vegetables)
products,
contain
value.
agricultural
decreased
fruits
canned
products
nutritional
traditional
led
sh
replacement
modern
eliminated
Most
fresh
replaced
colonized
as
as
In
addition,
ways
labour
to
and
our
many
and
calories
the
soft
but
drinks.
do
introduction
commute
long
were
(as
journeys
not
of
opposed
by
canoe)
activity
.
Taiwan
Mariana
Hawaii
Is.
MICRONESIA
Philippines
Caroline
Marshall
Is.
Is.
Palau
POLYNESIA
Kiribati
Bismarck
New
Arch.
Guinea
Solomon
Is.
Tuvalu
Tokelau
Marquesas
Santa
Is.
Cruz
Samoa
MELANESIA
Vanuatu
Cook
Tuamotu
Is.
Society
Mangareva
Tonga
Australia
New
Arch.
Is.
Fiji
Austral
Caledonia
Is.
Easter
Kermadec
Norfolk
New
Figure
5.9
OTHER
Of
Pacic
course,
apart
5.2.4
from
above,
environmental
factors
Risk
SNOITINIFED
is
the
variable
any
two
is
a
that
and
VARIABLES
broad
much
can
groups
greater
contribute
for
third
of
factors
variety
to
developing
variable
B,
a
A
is
a
such
that
a
see
on
account
the
association
between
A
factors
Risk
factor
and
confounding
120
disappears
Unit
5—Health
psychology
and
for
additional
protective
research
support,
factors”.
when
it
is
Protective
factors—factors
developing
a
and
C
disease
or
that
reduce
the
chance
illness
taken
factors—factors
that
increase
weakens
developing
or
and
For
Risk
into
these
“5.2.4
factors
risk
disease,
more
of
obesity
.
protective
variables—when
chance
is
the
there
Confounding
C
Zealand
islands
ENVIRONMENTAL
mentioned
Island
Is.
Is.
a
disease
or
illness
the
chances
of
of
ESSENTIAL
Risk
All
and
UNDERSTANDING
protective
factors
inuencing
organized
into
two
Haines
factors
health
groups:
and
risk
well-being
factors
and
are
A
in
risk
factor
developing
•
A
is
a
protective
anything
that
increases
the
chances
is
the
protective
anything
that
can
reduce
(2006)
that
a
showed
range
variables
development
conducted
of
disease.
factor
al
environmental
protective
factors.
•
et
adolescents
typically
in
this
of
a
as
obesity
.
See
for
longitudinal
personal,
serve
study
factors.
in
of
risk
Haines
and
Separate
each
of
et
the
al
study
behavioural
with
and
protective
analyses
potential
socio-
factors
were
risk
and
(2006)
such
Separating
confounding
variables
chances.
When
For
some
of
the
commonly
mentioned
risk
and
we
for
obesity
,
see
“Risk
and
protective
factors
one
How
is
this
supported
by
by
research
and
protective
factors
for
et
al
(2005)
found
in
a
cross-sectional
study
children
that
family
variables
make
an
to
childhood
obesity
.
but
Parental
a
obesity
,
to
be
duration
important.
of
See
sleep
and
Padez
breastfeeding
et
al
T
able
5.4
Risk
PROTECTIVE
shows
some
disorders
High
weight
birth
Sedentary
Poor
eating
of
foods
with
amounts
parents
of
this
could
therefore
be
explained
samples
where
important
complex
to
by
conduct
used
to
estimate
the
effect
statistical
of
a
range
of
potentially
a
risk
factor
confounding
like
this,
Chaput
(2009)
found
that
the
variables.
risk
predictive
of
BMI
were
short
sleep
duration,
factors
low
intake,
restraint
prevention
and
disinhibition.
programmes
“non-traditional”
risk
should
This
factors.
See
target
suggests
Chaput
a
wider
that
range
(2009)
factors
for
obesity
.
for
of
the
dairy
rst
six
products
months
of
life
(calcium)
physical
activity
duration
of
of
sleep
sporting
of
(parental
venues
healthy
behaviours
by
inuence)
Self-efcacy
Realistic
weight
dissatisfaction
knowledge
and
expectations
about
loss
5.4
Family
obesity
risk
Padez
child
are
the
al
(2005)—risk
and
protective
the
for
family
obesity
,
turned
out
to
important
children.
and
predictors
Parents’
short
while
be
factors
following
most
Portuguese
in
factors
education
et
understanding
variables
among
single
all
high
sugar
Essential
a
protective
Reinforcement
parents
SES
RESEARCH
✪
of
is
breakfast
Regular
diet
Sufcient
habits
cases
It
factors
Accessibility
Availability
T
able
the
activity
Unhealthy
Body
and
intake
Eating
in
sleep
added
risk
High
density
and
were
Breastfeeding
Endocrine
BMI
signicant
OBESITY
Protective
obesity
High-energy
FOR
mentioned
factors
Parental
Low
FACTORS
commonly
with
a
nd
(2005)
of
AND
factors
to
education,
obesity
RISK
many
large
are
above
study
calcium
shown
in
variables.
with
and
most
parental
likely
important
In
contribution
are
with
over
7–9-year-old
we
obesity
techniques
Padez
one,
research?
confounding
Risk
risk
for
correlation,
obesity”.
potential
protective
obesity
factors
correlate
sleep
obesity
,
duration
breastfeeding
protective
and
of
being
were
parents’
and
overweight
factors:
occupation,
spent
of
for
parents’
child’
s
breastfeeding,
birth,
activity
,
time
sleeping
weight,
birth
time
to
on
of
in
of
the
television,
days
and
in
children
educational
number
children
watching
school
obesity
height,
weight,
number
allocated
and
at
levels
months
family
,
order
physical
weekends.
factors.
Results
•
Aim
T
o
identify
obesity
in
risk
and
protective
Portuguese
factors
for
overweight
•
children.
In
the
sample,
overweight
and
Fathers’
found
and
to
20%
and
be
of
11%
especially
the
children
as
most
were
classied
as
obese.
mothers’
levels
important
risk
of
obesity
were
factors.
Method
•
Cross-sectional
A
high
level
of
education
of
parents
was
found
to
be
study
.
associated
Participants
4,511
Portuguese
public
schools.
•
children
(aged
7–9),
all
of
whom
attended
Being
a
single
increased
families
with
risk
and
presented
a
lower
child
of
in
obesity
the
obesity
.
children
lower
children.
family
was
Conversely
,
who
risk
in
for
were
being
born
associated
children
later
than
overweight
with
from
or
large
siblings
obese.
Procedure
•
Height
and
weight
were
measured
for
each
child.
More
hours
of
television
viewing
increased
the
risk
of
Parents
obesity
.
lled
out
a
questionnaire
that
collected
information
on
the
Health
psychology
121
•
Breastfeeding
protective
•
Fewer
hours
likelihood
children
effect
of
of
for
against
sleep
more
than
six
months
had
a
obesity
.
were
overweight
predictors
intervention
associated
and
important
with
higher
family
of
obesity
.
programmes
context
into
This
should
be
suggests
that
designed
taking
the
account.
obesity
.
Note
•
Interestingly
,
time
spent
on
physical
activity
and
mean
Separate
energy
intake
were
not
associated
with
overweight
analyses
were
conducted
in
this
study
for
each
of
or
the
potential
risk
and
protective
factors.
obesity
.
Conclusion
Overall
the
childhood
study
shows
population,
RESEARCH
Essential
A
that,
family
at
least
in
variables
Haines
et
al
the
are
Portuguese
the
most
(2006)—risk
and
the
personal,
behavioural
and
socio-
environmental
variables
serve
and
protective
in
range
the
development
unhealthy
weight
important
risk
of
as
obesity
.
control
factors
related
understanding
of
✪
protective
risk
Body
dissatisfaction
behaviours
are
among
•
and
the
obesity
concerns
parents
children
factors
for
to
are
do
demographic
and
adolescents
behaviours
trying
so),
in
to
peer
variables:
lose
dieting
sex,
(when
weight
or
either
or
both
encourage
of
their
behaviours
ethnicity
,
age,
SES
status.
most
Results
factors.
•
T
o
examine
of
overweight
were
and
Personal
factors:
concerns
Aim
a
range
of
among
combined
into
possible
risk
adolescents.
three
and
All
protective
the
factors
potential
groups—personal,
factors
was
a
and
weight
•
Method
time
Longitudinal
study
.
•
1
dissatisfaction
predicted
correlation:
concern
was
Behavioural
control
body
time
positive
participant
behavioural
socio-environmental.
at
ve
factors:
behaviours
the
there
years
more
was,
the
weight
at
body
more
time
2.
This
dissatisfaction
overweight
the
later
.
dieting
was
and
overweight
and
also
use
of
predictive
unhealthy
of
weight
overweight
at
2.
Protective
factors
frequency
of
against
breakfast
overweight
consumption,
were
greater
higher
levels
of
Participants
weight-related
A
diverse
sample
of
2,516
adolescents
who
participated
Project
Eating
Among
T
eens
(EAT)
higher
levels
of
parental
weight-
in
related
the
teasing,
concerns.
study
.
•
This
also
were
implies
not
that
the
signicantly
rest
of
the
associated
factors
with
(listed
above)
overweight.
Conclusion
The
positive
association
weight
concern
dietary
restraint:
restrictive
hunger
,
Dieting
which
lose
and
weight
behaviours,
and
this
was
may
weight
to
to
to
lead
restrictive
to
the
explained
to
dieting
and
other
lead
to
overeating.
overweight,
same
restraint,
and
by
and
behaviours
increased
using
cognitive
dissatisfaction
be
disinhibition
lead
explained
leads
body
may
concerns
these
leads
shown
be
between
overweight
logic:
and
dieting
this
leads
to
to
Procedure
disinhibition
Participants
time
The
•
2
completed
surveys
twice,
at
time
1
(1998–9)
measures
outcome
in
Overall,
the
survey
variables:
reported
weight
personal
variables:
included:
BMI
and
(calculated
on
self-
associated
and
with
body
satisfaction;
weight
ndings
behavioural
variables:
dietary
intake,
frequency
of
consumption,
frequency
of
breakfast
be
spent
targeted
using
a
at
engaging
in
disordered
losing
food
physical
activity
,
eating
weight
substitute,
than
behaviours
such
using
as
fasting,
usual,
socio-environmental
healthy
122
Unit
foods,
that
interventions
with
their
that
increase
bodies
laxatives,
taking
diet
pills
eating
little
smoking
or
variables:
weight-related
5—Health
home
psychology
them
to
lose
weight
by
and
engaging
in
put
dieting
Instead,
an
effective
intervention
will
will
be
a
positive
self-image
and
a
motivation
to
to
engage
behaviours
such
as
eating
breakfast
in
regularly
.
food,
Note
more
inducing
availability
teasing,
on
(behaviours
parental
analyses
were
conducted
in
this
vomit)
the
•
suggest
dissatisfaction
sedentary
Separate
cigarettes
signicantly
consumption,
healthy
behaviours,
(personal,
were
overweight.
effective.
enhance
hours
domains
fast
not
food
three
socio-environmental)
concern
pressure
•
eating.
all
depressive
adolescents’
symptoms;
binge
within
height)
The
•
factors
behavioural
based
and
and
(2003–4).
of
weight-
potential
risk
and
protective
factors.
study
for
each
of
RESEARCH
Chaput
(2009)—the
Quebec
Family
Study
of
risk
factors
for
adult
overweight
and
obesity
Essential
It
✪
to
is
obesity
variables.
over
This
techniques
of
such
to
see
and
may
on
large
risk
shown
whether
above
be
techniques
traditional”
were
amount
understanding
essential
be
sets.
the
In
in
risk
factor
potentially
with
resulted
factors,
to
other
done
data
a
use
Chaput
whereas
some
statistical
(2009),
a
are
confounding
of
identifying
these
contributes
set
application
of
“traditional”
higher
the
However
,
you
might
groups
should
also
family
tend
also
differ
to
compare
discover
consuming
intake
is
end
a
up
more
of
situation
in
consume
less
what
observed
calcium.
and
In
obesity
.
where
the
variables,
families
this
with
case
differences
in
in
obesity
developing
other
that
of
calcium,
in
a
obesity
rates
for
Suppose
the
rates
that
risk
considerably
income.
wonder
and
might
group
calcium
income
insignicant.
in
intake
Y
ou
that
example
ones
calcium
groups.
conclude
two
“non-
of
two
for
lower
you
the
rates
Aim
of
T
o
determine
the
contribution
of
a
range
of
risk
factors
obesity
actually
overweight
and
intake
or
family
income.
to
Researchers
adult
reect—calcium
should
be
looking
for
effects
of
risk
factors
obesity
.
on
obesity
other
after
statistically
associated
correcting
variables—for
for
example,
the
is
effects
calcium
of
intake
Participants
associated
White
two-parent
families,
French
Canadians
from
Quebec
City
with
rates
of
obesity
over
and
above
what
can
be
the
explained
greater
by
variations
in
family
income?
area.
Chaput
(2009)
used
statistical
techniques
that
allowed
these
Background
types
The
Quebec
conducted
in
2001.
Family
in
Its
Study
three
major
was
phases,
started
with
objective
was
the
to
in
1978
third
and
phase
investigate
role
in
obesity
,
tness
and
For
of
the
the
and
Quebec
conducted
Height,
with
analysed
weight
and
•
lipid,
alcohol
•
mean
•
eating
and
cognitive
to
o
certain
physical
sub-set
analysis
follow-up
along
with
was
period.
signicantly
•
short
•
low
sleep
•
high
•
restraint
It
is
of
(a
with
a
questionnaire):
person’
s
intent
to
control
excessive
eating
in
response
lipid
(food
intake
in
response
to
and
alcohol
because
to
be
all
hours
of
variables:
education
these
lost.
to
important.
be
to
(such
prevention
by
one,
SES
and
factors
had
associated
that
and
risk
status,
employment
such
rarely
factor
you
split
annual
family
5.3.1
been
with
studies
assess
over
the
and
shown
the
risk
usually
the
above
sample
Health
in
of
look
unique
into
the
prior
research
obesity
,
at
Acceptability
SNOITINIFED
welcome
positive
risk
(of
and
data
approach
policy
behaviour
relationship
factors
as
turned
This
to
be
address
a
as
duration)
wider
health
range
to
of
weight
these
and
intensity
confounded
adjustment
that
body
exercise
“non-traditional”
suggests
sleep
between
physical
out
statistical
some
by
or
other
relationships
factors
appeared
professionals
“non-traditional”
increase
the
risk
effectiveness
of
programmes.
a
health
For
groups
of
of
the
the
issue
there
sleeping
the
several
has
hours
decades.
importance
also
of
negative
of
The
dairy
suggest
impact.
of
sleeping
been
a
time
decrease
is
in
particularly
the
by
more
than
one
hour
average
over
effect
foods,
of
calcium
particularly
intake
the
suggests
skimmed
milk.
that
cognitive
Cognitive
restraint
restraint
may
may
lead
have
to
being
a
under
on
stress,
which
may
lead
to
higher
frequency
disinhibition
episodes
(when
an
individual
“gives
up”
to
the
which
may
and
of
the
believe
promotion
result
in
guilt
and
lower
self-efcacy
.
programme)—
Fidelity
programmes
(of
programme
the
that
activities;
it
causes
to
into
health
account
individual
promotion—an
multiple
level
to
the
layers
of
a
health
programme
this
percentage
takes
that
example,
based
health
prevention
stakeholders
obtained
from
say
Social
can
of
programme)—participants
actually
be
the
implement
measured
prescribed
marketing—mass
campaigns,
designed
to
as
the
the
average
activities
media
achieve
and
of
recommended
conducted
advertising
social
change
community
Sugar-sweetened
and
only
were:
promotion
approach
that
inuence,
the
BMI
factors
change
Ecological
higher
Chaput
contributions
others.
two
Effectiveness
participants
a
income.
food),
5.3
with
status,
of
imagine
the
intake
because
constantly
certain
were
sleep
a
one
factors
behaviour
.
risk
Instead,
need
factors
Findings
argues
the
adjustment,
activity
of
signicantly
(2009)
of
intake
eating
with
were
may
hunger
that
“traditional”
factors,
past
Although
associated
calcium
eating
interesting
such
number
level
most
statistical
Discussion
cues)
demographic
the
one,
after
disinhibition
pertinent
•
by
duration
dietary
Researchers
number
one
However
,
several
intake
(occasional
hunger)
the
six-year
a
intake)
experiencing
daily
a
measured
restraint
food
to
•
Longitudinal
(assessed
susceptibility
•
used
as:
traits
of
disinhibition
(2009)
intake
dietary
amount
over
calcium
caloric
Chaput
data.
were
such
behaviour
the
Study
BMI
factors
daily
factors
study
,
participants
risk
o
the
Family
potential
o
of
answered.
diabetes.
procedure
purposes
be
Results
signicant.
Method
to
of
When
genetics
questions
was
ending
the
of
beverages
(SSBs)—drinks
with
level
added
sugar
,
drinks
and
such
energy
as
non-diet
soft
drinks,
avoured
juice
drinks
Health
psychology
123
ESSENTIAL
Ecological
As
we
have
problem)
is
UNDERSTANDING
approach
seen,
a
obesity
to
health
(as
well
biopsychosocial
as
curriculum,
promotion
any
other
phenomenon,
“Health
health
so
it
to
expect
prevention
programmes
to
range
of
biological,
psychological
and
social
research,
this
factors.
and
problem
requires
a
holistic
promotion
enabling
their
people
health”
Ecological
can
to
be
dened
increase
(WHO
are
involvement.
See
was
shown
acceptable.
to
be
generally
However
,
varied,
and
family
involvement
delity
appeared
of
to
as
control
“the
over
,
process
and
to
et
of
weakest
al
element
of
the
programme.
See
be
Langford
(2015)
improve,
Community
level
An
health
2005).
approach
multiple
family
framework”.
solution.
to
health
promotion
suggests
example
layers
of
environmental
of
promotion
on
a
community
level
is
that
social
there
and
(HPS)
A
the
Health
framework
interventions
interventions
holistic
Schools
target
effective
a
environment,
is
In
reasonable
school
Promoting
marketing.
See
“Social
marketing:
Canada
on
the
determinants
Move”.
of
health
that
need
to
be
addressed
holistically:
individual,
Craig,
interpersonal,
organizational,
community
and
policy
“Ecological
approach
to
health
T
udor-Locke
effectiveness
An
is
example
the
idea
of
health
of
promotion
health
mentorship.
on
promotion
See
the
interpersonal
model.
“Challenge!
Bauman
“Canada
campaign
combination
level
Challenge!
of
(2006)
on
the
investigated
Move”,
a
social
promotion”.
marketing
Interpersonal
and
level.
the
See
It
is
health
based
level
on
easy-to-use
walking
the
of
to
promote
motivational
pedometers
time.
See
messages
was
Craig,
walking,
effective
and
and
at
Tudor-Locke
found
that
dissemination
increasing
and
a
of
average
Bauman
(2006)
promotion
model”.
Policy
Research
has
demonstrated
effectiveness
of
this
An
in
terms
of
of
preventing
unhealthy
foods.
BMI
gain
However
,
and
the
reducing
key
effects
level
programme
example
of
health
introduction
of
specially
of
were
delayed
and
only
became
visible
months.
See
Black
et
al
the
taxes
policy
on
level
is
the
sugar-sweetened
(SSBs)
combined
with
subsidies
on
fresh
fruits
and
in
vegetables.
24
on
designed
the
beverages
programme
promotion
consumption
See
“Health
and
taxes”.
(2010)
Challenges
Organizational
level
Health
An
example
of
health
promotion
on
the
of
level
is
the
Health
Promoting
Schools
promotion
(HPS)
framework.
challenges
elements
targeted
in
this
health
promotion
such
as
the
against
fact
that
obesity
different
face
a
number
sub-groups
in
strategy
are
differentially
vulnerable
to
weight
gain.
See
are
Malterud
and
Tonstad
(2009)
THEORY
ECOLOGICAL
Broadly
,
there
APPROACH
are
individual-based
The
two
programmes
approaches
approach
population-based
and
TO
and
approach
policies
that
HEAL
TH
PROMOTION
to
promotion:
health
population-based
focuses
affect
the
on
the
Level
Examples
Individual
Education
Interpersonal
Social
more
to
In
the
the
long
economy
,
run,
so
healthy
importance
of
Individual-based
taking
into
However
,
such
health
of
populations
policy-makers
health
have
approaches
consideration
the
most
would
probably
where
multiple
target
their
successful
adopt
the
promotion
an
to
health
of
health
T
able
5.5
are
of
so-called
recognized
gives
physical
activity
Healthy
groups
of
lunch
workplace
promotion
initiatives
exercise
Community
Mass
Policy
Legislation
ecological
level
media
incentives
programmes
for
food
labelling;
5.5
Environmental
determinants
and
actions
DEMOCRACY
GLOBAL
CULTURE
AND
SPIRITUALITY
SAFE
TRANSPORT
NEIGHBOURHOODS
model
NETWORKS
promotion
E
WATER
S
HEALTH
M
I
TICS P
E
R
S
O
N
AND
SOCIAL
A
C
IT
A
L
I
T
T
V
CARE
SE
E
EN
G
I
X
E
E
S
T
Y
EL
T
W
psychology
SANITATION
D
O
5—Health
T
IN
U
M
M
OC
Unit
Y
124
E
N
L
A
R
U
TA
N
FOOD
PRODUCTION
AND
A
N
R
D
N
A
LEARNING
O
C
I
A
L
E
T
L
I
U
B
AND
T
C
R
O
P
P
U
Y
E
I
V
N
R
O
INCOME
N
WORK AND
taxes
or
businesses
addressed.
EDUCATION
school;
approach
ECOSYSTEM
health
at
campaigns
on
AND
of
healthy
facilities
determinants
examples.
Ecological
and
people,
DIVERSITY
5.10
beliefs
recognized
GOVERNANCE
Figure
and
that
circumstances.
environmental
and
attitudes
campaigns
diets
T
able
layers
change
networking
entire
contribute
programmes.
specic
unique
action
promoting
Organizational
the
of
approach.
encourage
population.
a
The
population
three
strategies
organizational
HOUSING
taken
CHALLENGE!
Challenge!
is
prevention
programme
Mentorship
a
HEALTH
is
12-session
built
on
PROMOTION
health
based
the
on
MODEL
promotion
and
the
mentorship.
principles
idea
of
of
role
obesity
modelling
eating
every
Mentors
for
the
programme
are
selected
in
a
mentors
makes
them
relatable
to
the
participants
same
race).
visit
age
Each
and
social
participant
participants
at
background,
is
paired
home
and
with
same
a
gender
mentor
.
accompany
to
convenience
stores
or
session
has
a
challenge,
for
to
drink
water
instead
sets
a
personal
goal
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
This
Mentors
them
on
preventing
delayed
et
example,
soda.
to
al
an
promotion
increase
to
Many
and
of
only
the
BMI
key
During
to
the
formulate
regular
realistic
sessions
goals
and
participants
their
successes
and
failures,
ways
to
barriers
overcome
are
the
HBM—reecting
them.
that
they
Such
have
discussions
based
on
on
one’
s
motivation,
for
benets
and
barriers,
and
so
on.
session
also
taste
includes
tests,
and
making
sharing
and
tasting
recipes
for
healthy
healthy
food
participant
activity
et
al
2010).
and
(2010)—effectiveness
of
Challenge!
health
promotion
model
Results
and
effects
become
vegetables
persuade
Each
physical
programme
of
of
then
trips,
understanding
health
desserts.
Black
portions
parks.
of
related
participants
and
(Black
also
two
encountered
snacks,
someone
eat
and
Each
Each
help
motivation.
identifying
example,
to
(approximately
discuss
the
example,
way
increase
that
(for
and
The
support.
habits
day).
visible
is
effective
reducing
of
the
after
in
snacks
programme
24
•
and
are
In
the
or
obese
intervention
group
months.
it
increased.
tendency
to
group
participants
(perhaps
increase
fat
the
percentage
declined
Such
whereas
trends
especially
percentage
suggest
in
and
the
fat
of
in
overweight
the
that
heaviest
mass,
control
there
was
a
adolescents)
whereas
the
Aim
T
o
evaluate
the
of
changes
in
12-session
Challenge!
programme
in
status,
body
composition,
physical
protected
Intervention
was
from
this
tendency
.
effective
in
dietary
improvements,
activity
especially
and
them
terms
•
BMI
intervention
the
reduction
of
snacks
and
desserts.
Most
diet.
other
and
dietary
desserts
effects
was
faded
stable
away
,
over
the
but
the
effect
two-year
on
snacks
follow-up
Participants
period.
235
black
adolescents
aged
11–16,
from
low-income
•
urban
communities,
of
whom
38%
could
be
classied
There
was
months
overweight
or
no
some
observed
that
among
changes
behavioural
controlled
Overall,
composition,
included
physical
were
weight
activity
randomly
and
and
height,
or
by
control.
The
college-aged
were
intervention)
assigned
health
the
black
conducted
and
measurements
24
to
either
promotion
mentors
after
months
were
composition
11
radiograph
in
that
assessed
of
the
same
obesity
by
taken
of
the
of
absorptiometry
placing
ankle
patterns
as
are
participants.
delayed.
This
They
suggests
follow
a
with
a
was
BMI
≥
were
key
follow-up).
variables.
body
fat)
scanner
.
uniaxial
was
measured
95
as
that
effective
the
in
Challenge!
preventing
with
a
≥
in
reducing
snacks
and
an
desserts.
interventions
in
general
can
This
lead
changes
in
diet
and
body
to
composition.
fact
that
most
choices
of
faded
the
effects
away
in
of
the
the
intervention
two-year
on
follow-up
that
a
more
intensive
intervention
may
be
period
necessary
example,
maintain
these
changes.
measured
accelerometer
BMI
and
Precise
For
Physical
non-removable
categorized
concluded
gender
.
researchers
hospital
also
note
that
effects
of
such
intervention
activity
on
(for
example,
changes
in
adiposity)
sometimes
each
not
be
detected
straight
away
,
but
become
visible
after
band.
a
Overweight
24
(post-
may
Dietary
heaviest
was
behavioural
programmes
adolescent’
s
in
were
was
The
was
but
health
programme
months
(delayed
(percentage
researchers
BMI
to
a
months,
composition
changes.
increase
suggests
by
11
diet.
dietary
body
the
adiposity
programme
The
Evaluations
in
promotion
sustainable
delivered
in
body
body
shows
promotion
on
Conclusion
measures
Participants
adiposity
effects
trial.
Procedure
Baseline
on
delayed
obese.
Method
Randomized
effect
as
delayed
follow-up.
questionnaire.
85
percentile,
and
percentile.
Health
psychology
125
THE
The
HEALTH
WHO
healthy
recognizes
children
education
WHO’
s
a
encourage
health
changing
•
working
a
of
that
healthy
classes
Region
Schools
HPS
is
a
The
HPS
framework
effective
the
at
vegetable
has
increasing
intake
in
been
shown
physical
school
to
activity
be
and
generally
fruit
and
students.
developed
(HPS).
environments
The
education:
mind,
The
that
HPS
will
multi-component
in
the
school
curriculum
environment
with
families
and
wider
to
suggests
follow
in
School”.
constantly
involves
for
a
number
to
The
The
of
overall
their
The
guidelines
the
of
is
to
is
framework
to
title
purpose
a
stakeholders
stakeholders
community
.
capacity
framework
multiple
the
school
deserve
strengthen
environment.
tool
the
order
transformation.
monitoring
in
FRAMEWORK
better
physical
that
gradual
school
this
Pacic
and
and
school’
s
framework
approach
With
Western
lifestyles.
health
education,
health.
(HPS)
the
Promoting
schools
between
Promoting
create
education
have
“Health
the
SCHOOLS
including:
•
HPS
in
Health
to
link
better
better
healthier
•
schools
for
aims
programme
as
in
subdivision
framework
the
achieve
results
framework
The
PROMOTING
to
create
function
holistic
in
the
also
assess
that
a
process
provides
their
a
progress
(WRPO).
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
The
is
family
Promoting
effective,
but
involvement.
interventions
points
due
toward
education
et
al
(2015)—effectiveness
of
the
to
the
and
Schools
the
lack
need
of
for
(HPS)
weakest
There
are
of
also
closer
framework
the
issues
institutional
a
Health
changes
understanding
Health
generally
Langford
three
with
the
elements
delity
support,
integration
and
observed
is
•
which
Reports
on
to
expressed
Aim
summarize
of
the
HPS
research
studies
investigating
the
effectiveness
framework.
•
the
all
the
delity
take
it
percentage
implemented.
from
Family
involvement
of
were
stakeholders
ranged
weakest
(HPS)
positive
curriculum,
programme
as
their
teachers
intervention
successfully
T
o
in
Schools
framework
effects.
often
but
It
was
resistant
with
the
also
to
course
of
lessened.
which
promotion
health.
initially
resistance
extent
between
welcomed
that
innovations
time
of
Promoting
Fidelity
seriously
.
of
In
varied.
involved
in
It
the
is
et
al
the
health
often
intervention
Langford
is
activities
(2015)
it
21–90%.
the
three
was
HPS
consistently
elements.
shown
Parental
to
be
the
attendance
Participants
at
Students
aged
4–18
attending
meetings
was
poor
,
which
was
especially
true
for
low
schools.
SES
•
areas.
T
ailoring
the
programme
to
the
context
of
a
particular
Method
school
A
combination
of
(quantitative)
meta-analysis
(including
develop
(qualitative)
inductive
content
analysis.
The
former
for
such
data
as
target
age
group,
study
duration
outcomes
(BMI,
fruit
and
vegetable
the
programme)
intake,
In
of
the
contrast,
on).
The
latter
research
was
papers
used
and
to
read
identify
the
the
“discussion”
specic
elements
that
were
or
were
not
effective.
In
total,
26
of
in
the
analysis
because
these
studies
and
outcome
to
to
facilitate
most
commonly
were
lack
of
identied
institutional
barriers
support
to
and
emphasis
included
on
and
academic
potentially
subjects
over
unpopular
PE.
Offering
healthy
foods
was
were
risky
for
catering
services,
which
explains
why
they
both
were
process
shown
the
studies
also
included
was
section
unfamiliar
HPS
itself
and
the
in
school
mission.
the
implementation
so
the
and
•
programme
with
was
success
used
working
and
usually
reluctant
to
do
so.
data.
Conclusion
Procedure
The
Inductive
content
analysis
identied
the
themes
following
suggested
•
intervention
•
implementation
implications
for
policy
and
research
have
been
of:
based
on
this
review.
acceptability
•
Greater
integration
is
needed
between
health
and
delity
education.
•
family
•
barriers
involvement
•
facilitators
•
to
The
importance
carefully
of
•
Where
was
126
reported,
generally
Unit
More
process
research
catering
family
involvement
needs
to
be
staff
considered.
implementation.
Results
•
of
implementation
acceptability
high.
all
Students,
reported
5—Health
that
of
the
teachers,
they
psychology
the
intervention
parents
mostly
and
enjoyed
the
evaluations
papers
prevention
to
enable
need
to
be
published
identication
programme
most
of
in
elements
responsible
for
of
success.
SOCIAL
Social
Social
MARKETING:
ON
THE
MOVE
do
marketing
marketing
control
CANADA
obesity
.
promotion
is
It
often
includes
strategies
campaigns)
to
used
using
(using
increase
as
a
tool
various
television
public
to
and
marketing
and
and
awareness
other
about
anyway
,
least
prevent
•
•
The
on
the
WHO’
s
developed
the
mass
Move
Global
in
public
(WHO
to
undertake
activity
applied
and
walking
RESEARCH
and
Physical
recommended
at
least
30
most
days
of
added
Craig,
Diet
2004)
moderate-intensity
to
for
to
Activity
minutes
the
normal
and
time,
of
week.
walking
Tudor-Locke
media,
motivating
that
translates
A
of
Move
with
walking
The
use
campaign
of
created
Pedometers
“add
and
to
to
at
2,000
steps”.
“donate
directed
in
your
to
the
(step
collect
increased
advertisements
mass-distributed
were
of
aimed
pedometers
was
through
was
users
recommendation
time.
national
the
data.
were
the
platform
message
message
and
a
and
promoted
the
into
walking
was
web-based
were
research”,
daily
walking
pedometers
boxes.
When
the
monitor
walking
Strategy
2004
on
promoting
counters).
health.
this
minutes
Canada
at
advertising
and
Canada
60
At
malls
steps
in
mass
the
same
via
cereal
to
health
project’
s
website.
we
Bauman
(2006)—effectiveness
of
the
Canada
on
the
Move
programme
Aim
T
o
Results
investigate
programme
the
on
impact
physical
of
the
activity
Canada
on
the
Move
•
Awareness
(walking).
associated
•
of
the
with
Recognizing
brand
13%
the
Canada
higher
specic
on
odds
tagline
the
of
Move
was
sufcient
“donate
your
walking.
steps
to
Participants
health
9,935
was
associated
with
23%
higher
odds
adults.
of
Method
and
T
elephone
data.
research”
The
physical
interviews
and
questionnaire
activity
in
the
sufcient
not
procedure
questionnaires
was
used
previous
to
were
assess
seven
days.
used
to
walking
collect
•
Participants
engage
and
Participants
walking,
recognize
in
this
compared
to
participants
who
did
tagline.
owing
a
sufcient
pedometer
walking
were
than
14%
those
more
not
likely
owning
to
one.
were
Conclusion
also
asked
whether
they:
Health
•
had
heard
of
the
campaign
brand
Canada
on
the
be
•
had
heard
the
messages
“add
2,000
steps”
and
promotion
achieved
by
•
steps
owned
HEALTH
a
to
step
AND
Legislation
in
as
and
taxation
2016,
for
diet
This
scal
•
and
of
report
diet.
and
by
health
food
published
the
the
were
states
taxes
or
include
age
limitation
result
of
for
guidance
meeting,
on
a
Subsidies
for
reduction
of
increasing
of
can
“Fiscal
on
policies
diseases”.
large
in
effective
to
of
design
evidence
made.
retail
to
For
example,
obesity
authorities
beverages
in
prices
reduce
was
easy-to-use
retail
fruits
prices
and
and
by
vegetables
10–30%)
vegetable
(resulting
can
be
from
to
tools
low-SES
such
decreased
in
a
effective
for
most
because
of
for
may
with
self-monitoring.
backgrounds
policies
in
SSBs,
2012
and
among
implemented
with
by
Reductions
are
Mexico
71%
household
status—as
fresh
fruit
Consumers
consumption
number
how
were
(resulting
be
•
responsive
consumption.
•
walking
messages
and
benet
are
most
the
most
from
changes.
existing
conclusions
SSBs
initiatives
on
sales.
report
the
more)
such
limits
of
meeting
the
following
20%
can
labels,
non-communicable
During
designed
increasing
of
geographic
member
on
reviewed
Specially
sphere
and
from
of
research”
subsidies,
WHO
policies
increase
TAXES
prevention
meeting
requests
was
the
and
the
motivational
counter
.
the
consumption
In
health
combining
“donate
dissemination
your
through
Move
added
up
were
we
to
vulnerable
they
of
12%
higher
know
taxes
such
in
of
In
This
the
among
from
to
cannot
two
the
rate
adults.
sugar
.
purchases
had
the
the
2014,
affecting
in
beverages.
course
of
families
WHO
healthy
worldwide
non-alcoholic
a
decrease
Purchases
one
of
year
.
lower
(2016),
risk
and
Mexican
resulted
environmental
afford
highest
overweight
SES
these
factors
families
of
obesity
food.
consumption.
Health
psychology
127
ANAL
YSIS:
CHALLENGES
PROMOTION
Malterud
health
T
onstad
promotion
context).
•
and
They
Different
vary
to
with
cultures
than
born
women
health
each
Health
of
a
a
For
ethnicity
have
a
challenges
the
are
strategy
operating
5—Health
on
the
related
rates
needs
of
mean
to
be
from
obesity
that
a
designed
strategies
•
The
opportunity
distributed
more
such
as
largely
personal
genetic
assumption
psychology
that
may
to
lead
may
of
as
choices
richer
is
low-SES
“irresponsible”.
in
that
BMI
but
how?
unequally
having
emphasizing
regarding
this
health-
promotion
people
campaigns
the
in
research
variation
Health
individuals
of
change
from
account,
underestimate
stigmatization
epidemic
a
the
0.7).
(with
However
,
of
into
healthy
people
to
know
most
around
responsibilities
to
lead
we
genetics
make
among
behaviours
obesity
changing
take
opportunities).
eating
currently
explains
coefcients
should
will
However
,
heritability
(heritability
obesity
women
prevalence
could
of
inuences
behaviour
.
genetic
sub-groups.
variables
environmental
differentially
(immigrant
This
to
Norwegian
challenges.
example,
higher
Norway).
on
major
population
gain.
OBESITY
major
focus
programmes
biological
inheritance,
Unit
key
analysed
(with
promotion
the
promotion
ignore
in
HEALTH
AGAINST
following
in
weight
non-western
for
128
the
sub-groups
considerably
specic
•
(2009)
attempts
identify
vulnerable
TO
STRATEGIES
fact,
their
and
victims
this
of
the
6
HUMAN
R E L AT I O N S H I P S
T
opics
6.1
Personal
6.2
relationships
6.1.1
Formation
6.1.2
Role
6.1.3
Explanations
of
of
for
Group
dynamics
Cooperation
6.2.2
Prejudice
6.2.3
Origins
and
and
of
why
SNOITINIFED
well
because
of
personal
relationships
relationships
change
or
end
and
of
of
immune
that
forming
are
involved
romantic
origins
or
of
knowing
her
on
a
person
Mere
multiple
exposure
presented
complex
in
the
(MHC)—a
formation
of
group
with
effect—the
the
same
cognitive
stimulus
effect
repeatedly
of
being
multiple
Proximity—closeness
in
physical
space
the
take
many
bonds,
forms.
We
attracted
getting
to
will
focus
another
on
person,
married.
–
1.2.1
The
–
1.1.3
Neurotransmitters
of
romantic
Cognitive
relationships
are
attraction.
Biological
inuence
of
explanations
have
hormones
and
of
included
on
behaviour
behaviour
.
attraction
several
and
romantic
prominent
theories
mainly
including
to
behaviour
relationships
relationships
relevant
prosocial
UNDERSTANDING
relationships—being
Biological
behaviour
system
relationships
romantic
Promoting
times
ESSENTIAL
Personal
Prosocial
6.3.3
resolution
personal
state
him
histocompatibility
genes
Bystanderism
6.3.2
relationships
cognitive
meeting
conict
occasions
Major
responsibility
competition
conict
Formation
Familiarity—the
in
Social
6.3.1
discrimination
Personal
6.1.1
relationships
communication
6.2.1
6.1
6.3
personal
explanations
of
the
following.
attraction
–
Similarity-attraction
hypothesis
we
are
others
we
perceive
(Byrne
1961)
claims
that
include:
•
evolutionary
•
genetic
to
who
resemble
ourselves
and
explanations
people
more
positively
if
we
believe
that
explanations
they
•
attracted
neurochemical
share
our
attitudes
to
important
issues.
See
Byrne
explanations.
(1961)
Evolutionary
explanations—evolutionary
that
will
theory
predicts
–
females
nd
desirable
males
who
can
Matching
contact
better
economic
care
for
future
offspring
while
males
for
females
who
are
healthy
and
can
produce
for
attraction
with
people
own.
Walster
If
evolutionary
explanations
are
patterns
should
be
universal
across
individuals
cultures.
is
seek
similar
et
al
(1966)
and
Berscheid
et
al
to
(1971)
See
that
people
do
indeed
try
to
match
their
true,
attractiveness
these
that
attractiveness
healthy
demonstrated
offspring.
suggests
whose
will
their
look
hypothesis
provide
to
that
of
their
potential
mates,
at
least
Buss
at
the
initial
stages
of
a
Berscheid
et
al
relationship.
See
Walster
et
al
(1989)
(1966),
Genetic
explanations—these
are
linked
to
evolutionary
Social
explanations
and
suggest
that
the
basis
of
explanations
may
be
biological
markers
of
genetic
is
demonstrated
in
the
“Dirty
T
-shirt
study”.
familiarity
et
al
research
on
explanations—these
pheromones,
neurotransmitters
research
–
in
1.2.2
other
The
Biological
genetic
groups
as
hormones
included
such
as
dopamine.
and
the
mere
Moreland
Y
ou
oxytocin
will
nd
of
of
pheromones
attraction
neurochemical
are
proximity
see
and
this
–
on
OF
such
and
romantic
factors
exposure
as:
effect,
and
Beach
see
Zayonc
(1992)
social
connected
proof
al
to
close
(being
be
to
each
Schachter
more
more
other
and
Back
attracted
well-accepted
in
physical
space),
(1950)
to
in
people
who
society),
see
we
Jones
(2007)
behaviour
ATTRACTION
include
explanations.
closely
(being
Festinger
,
perceive
et
EXPLANATIONS
factors
have
topics:
explanations
and
of
such
inuence
BIOLOGICAL
on
(1995)
–
Neurochemical
attraction
focused
See
(1968),
Wedekind
have
compatibility
.
–
This
of
interpersonal
relationships
attraction
(1971).
evolutionary
,
These
with
three
each
other
.
Human
relationships
129
RESEARCH
Essential
similar
of
(1989)—a
cross-cultural
study
of
understanding
Patterns
✪
Buss
of
mate
preference
cross-culturally
evolutionary
and
are
in
males
and
consistent
females
with
the
are
predictions
–
mate
because
females
chances
of
Males
more
theory
.
preferences
their
valued
than
T
o
investigate
mate
cross-cultural
preferences
in
males
similarities
and
and
differences
in
–
females.
to
be
In
each
be
physical
females,
explanation
Aim
may
trying
to
maximize
the
survival
offspring.
that
attractiveness
consistent
men
nd
with
traits
in
the
potential
mates
evolutionary
associated
with
fertility
desirable.
of
the
younger,
samples
which
hypothesis
is
males
also
(younger
preferred
consistent
females
mates
with
have
the
higher
who
are
evolutionary
reproductive
Method
capacity).
A
survey:
–
–
questions
on
the
age
at
which
the
participant
Females
this
to
get
and
–
a
married,
spouse,
section
the
the
desired
desired
requesting
characteristics
intelligence)
(such
in
how
age
difference
between
number
of
children
participants
to
rate
as
dependable
desirable
it
be
being
a
cue
males
of
who
longevity
,
are
older
maturity
(possibly
or
due
to
experience).
self
Conclusion
each
of
character
,
would
preferred
preferred
in
18
–
chastity
,
a
potential
mate.
Researchers
preference
into
–
the
concluded
were
evolutionary
Females
success
appear
by
that
consistent
to
explanation
be
seeking
gender
across
of
maximizing
resources
for
differences
cultures
in
mate
t
well
attraction.
their
self
and
reproductive
and
offspring.
Participants
–
37
samples
over
from
10,000
33
countries
participants
in
located
on
6
continents
Males
appear
to
be
looking
for
more
fertile
females.
with
total.
Notes
Researchers
acknowledge
that
the
samples
obtained
cannot
Results
be
–
In
all
samples
females
valued
“good
viewed
in
a
potential
mate
more
highly
than
supports
the
evolutionary
explanation
of
Essential
Sexual
✪
female
Wedekind
complex
al
attraction
in
male
may
for
have
male
by
and
an
evolutionary
sweat
female
are
major
populations
Sample
sizes
varied
in
different
countries:
in
all
they
from
1,491
in
individuals
the
USA
were
to
55
in
Iran.
Rural
and
less
underrepresented.
(1995)
understanding
preferences
similarities
et
respective
attraction
educated
RESEARCH
of
males.
ranged
This
representative
nancial
countries.
prospect”
as
basis
correlated
because
–
with
men
worn
Each
with
by
T
-shirt
contents
histocompatibility
–
(MHC).
On
a
was
dissimilar
from
T
-shirt
for
a
0
in
hole
to
to
their
own,
and
three
men.
placed
through
scale
every
MHC
MHC-similar
10,
intensity
,
a
in
box
and
women
sniffed
the
it.
women
scored
pleasantness
the
and
odour
of
sexiness.
Aim
T
o
investigate
ratings
of
the
inuence
attractiveness
of
of
MHC
male
genes
sweat
on
Results
females’
–
odour
.
Women
odour
Background
MHC
the
is
a
group
immune
stronger
may
be
of
genes
system.
immune
encoded
that
system
by
plays
Dissimilar
in
body
an
MHC
the
in
important
parents
offspring.
role
in
produces
MHC
–
a
who
of
MHC-similar
men.
In
women
were
was
odour
.
not
of
tendency
information
did
take
MHC-dissimilar
who
was
rated
taking
reversed:
more
oral
men
oral
body
pleasant
contraceptives
as
more
contraceptives
odour
than
rated
pleasant
that
of
of
the
than
that
this
MHC-similar
men
MHC-dissimilar
men.
–
Ratings
–
Body
of
intensity
did
not
differ
.
Participants
49
female
and
45
male
students
(mean
age
25)
typed
of
MHC-dissimilar
men
reminded
women
for
their
their
odours
own
mates
or
ex-mates.
MHC.
Conclusion
Procedure
–
–
Female
participants
were
asked
to
report
if
they
Researchers
be
using
oral
The
men
a
factor
were
asked
to
wear
a
cotton
T
-shirt
on
Oral
and
Monday
The
T
-shirts
contraceptives
were
during
given
to
female
participants
who
saying
that
to
rate
the
odour
of
six
T
-shirts
each:
three
Unit
similarity
6—Human
imitate
steroids
pregnancy
.
The
that
authors
may
are
indeed
naturally
explain
relationships
this
may
lead
to
the
reversal
so
that
women
prefer
relatives
worn
because
130
MHC
of
this
odour
were
preferences
asked
that
attraction.
night.
by
–
sexual
a
released
Sunday
of
contraceptives.
–
–
concluded
were
they
help
take
care
of
the
baby).
(probably
of
OTHER
There
is
BIOLOGICAL
a
variety
development
romantic
know
–
of
of
other
parts
Pheromones—the
in
progress
the
idea
and
of
–
The
Hormones
et
al
in
of
links
to
as
these
in
this
that
for
the
formation
to
topics
to
of
that
pheromones
is
you
biological
of
pheromones
men;
on
example,
is
they
of
in
more
why
looked
and
RESEARCH
a
and
to
others
for
how
cognitive
personal
values
Byrne
to
of
in
and
this
mechanisms
relationships
that
Several
are
(1961)—similarity-attraction
hypothesis,
attraction.
when
example,
and
people
certain
brain
of
are
areas
areas
they
they
were
The
inuence
injected
of
are
their
part
rich
euphoria.
dopamine—for
(2005)
looking
of
are
as
in
See
at
brain
of
the
in
an
pictures
are
of
study
their
selectively
and
found
loved
activated.
dopaminergic
dopamine
“1.1.3
example,
fMRI
reward
implicated
in
Neurotransmitters
behaviour”.
reluctant
understanding
According
predictor
when
if
“1.2.1
behaviour”.
such
feelings
formed.
✪
woman
See
EXPLANATIONS
have
explain
Essential
on
Aron
pathway:
promoting
attractive
oxytocin.
Brown
These
Scheele
of
Neurotransmitters
ones,
See
an
dose
Fisher
,
that
behaviour".
involved
are
cues
but
attraction.
a
hormones
still
inconclusive,
origins
oxytocin
is
approach
with
–
area
oxytocin—for
found
link
human
signalling
of
the
course.
for
biological
monogamous
Psychologists
explanations
therefore
of
the
search
research
such
COGNITIVE
would
Many
inuence
(2012)
delity
(and
pheromones
attractiveness
“1.2.2
biological
attraction
relationships).
from
EXPLANATIONS
other
they
It
claims
somehow
appearance,
perceived
that
we
resemble
personal
similarity
are
is
ourselves
(for
have
been
similarity-attraction
–
matching
proposed,
some
of
which
are:
hypothesis
hypothesis.
hypothesis
–
opposite
–
similar
to
that
of
the
on
important
on
unimportant
participant
issues
and
on
all
issues
dissimilar
on
unimportant
ones
attracted
background,
theories
–
–
similar
issues
and
dissimilar
on
important
ones.
personality,
attitudes).
Participants
the
were
stranger
and
asked
rate
to
this
indicate
person
their
on
feelings
such
towards
characteristics
as
Aim
intelligence
T
o
investigate
attraction
the
and
relationship
attitude
between
and
morality
.
interpersonal
similarity
.
Results
–
Method
and
Participants
stranger
Researchers
asked
participants
to
rank
number
of
important
a
to
–
issues
on
their
importance
(from
most
when
Similarity
in
Examples
included
a
range
of
issues
and
later
they
premarital
were
more
positive
sex
shown
to
an
Western
movies.
anonymous
attitudes
important
were
ratings
towards
the
attitudes
similar
.
with
positive
ratings
was
more
than
closely
similarity
in
less
from
important
God
their
least
associated
important).
provided
procedure
Two
attitudes.
weeks
questionnaire
from
Conclusion
another
student.
In
fact,
the
questionnaire
was
faked
so
Perceived
that
responses
were
one
of
the
similarity
interpersonal
–
identical
to
that
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
The
participant
et
al,
on
all
hypothesis
(formerly
are
who
equally
more
known
likely
socially
to
as
1966—the
matching
hypothesis:
some
was
rst
Elaine
form
a
attitudes
indeed
increases
attraction.
issues
understanding
people
is
the
Walster
matching
Hateld
of
of
following:
proposed
Walster).
It
relationship
by
Elaine
states
with
that
someone
desirable.
the
information
computer
purchasing
rated
Hateld
their
lled
out
Tw o
days
about
would
tickets
for
physical
a
set
of
after
their
match
the
interests
them
dance,
with
four
attractiveness.
and
a
personalities,
date.
As
they
confederates
After
that
the
were
secretly
participants
questionnaires.
completing
q u e s t i o n n a i re s ,
participants
Aim
w e re
T
o
investigate
whether
people
are
more
likely
to
randomly
of
a
similar
level
of
physical
Participants
men
and
their
at
the
Participants’
376
women
(freshmen).
during
the
and
d a t e ’s
name,
date.
When
they
they
w e re
told
to
got
meet
to
their
dance.
attitudes
toward
intermission.
participants
Method
a
attractiveness.
date
376
to
date
know
someone
assigned
were
also
their
Several
dates
weeks
contacted
to
were
after
nd
out
assessed
the
if
dance
they
actually
procedure
started
Participants
were
“Computer
Dance”—they
randomly
paired
were
with
told
one
that
if
another
they
at
to
date
their
partner
“in
real
life”.
a
provided
Human
relationships
131
Results
Some
Since
Conclusion
observations
partners
attractive
average
and
to
attractive
that
were
less
supported
randomly
attractive
partners
of
individuals
matching
assigned,
we
participants
similar
were
the
can
were
attractiveness.
harsher
in
their
hypothesis.
assume
assigned
Data
and
matching
Participants
on
dates,
showed
standards
The
that
that
not
hypothesis
sought
the
was
not
relationships
ones
that
were
supported
with
similar
the
to
in
this
most
them
study
.
attractive
in
the
level
of
attractiveness.
rated
Notes
their
dates
date
their
as
less
attractive.
They
also
expressed
less
desire
to
–
partner
The
measure
highly
However
,
other
observations
did
not
support
the
reliable:
own
attractiveness
did
not
inuence
(and
attempts)
to
date
more
attractive
as
partners.
If
Desirability
they
of
was
attractive,
irrespective
of
participants
how
attractive
would
they
try
were
to
Berscheid
Essential
understanding
The
principle
✪
but
matching
not
of
in
this
maintaining
an
is
a
et
al
participant
study
only
for
a
is
not
few
standing
date
partner
was
in
line.
reduced
him
for
the
purposes
of
this
to
physical
research.
or
Findings
could
be
limited
to
in
brief
large
group
situations
where
themselves.
young
RESEARCH
the
the
–
her
were
the
attractiveness
partner
attractiveness
saw
their
–
desire
physical
raters
hypothesis.
seconds
Participants’
of
again.
(1971)—another
test
of
the
people
are
matching
very
contact
with
one
another
.
hypothesis
Results
determinant
already
of
established
the
initial
contact
–
relationship.
Attractive
and
participants
popular
supports
dates
the
chose
than
matching
more
physically
unattractive
attractive
participants
did.
This
hypothesis.
Aim
–
T
o
replicate
Walster
et
al’s
(1966)
study
with
It
was
not
different
in
high
and
low
POR
groups.
In
other
some
words,
increasing
fear
of
rejection
had
no
effect
on
the
modications.
choosing
Method
and
strategy
.
procedure
Conclusion
Participants
were
randomly
split
into
two
groups:
high
–
probability
of
rejection
(POR)
and
low
Why
did
while
The
high
POR
preliminary
dance
were
or
their
reject
told
with
meeting
where
accept
participants
that
whoever
with
date
them
their
was
were
their
would
as
a
dates
told
chosen
by
that
there
tentative
date
be
a
given
partner
.
had
The
agreed
the
their
prior
chance
low
to
would
POR
to
timing
a
the
of
they
either
the
–
algorithm.
et
or
They
al
their
choice
him
dance
met
studies
this,
participants
that
were
they
requested
desired
in
a
to
SOCIAL
attractive
FACTORS
Formation
of
it
IN
is
THE
wished
their
FORMATION
essentially
surprising
is
space
one
such
factor
.
means
a
that
Being
increased
EXPLANATIONS:
date
OF
to
for
increases
a
large
not
choose
they
where
became
which
with.
distance
to
from
the
Results
from
door
Back
of
each
various
social
All
close
to
chances
showed
to
(1950)
were
residents
same
door)
each
of
other
41%
we
residents
indicated
132
Unit
that
who
they
that
was
studied
West).
were
6—Human
Walster
the
et
made
al
date
a
choice
(1966)
and
that
the
important.
they
In
before
made
interacting
with
time.
that
the
initial
matching
contact
principle
(whether
or
may
not
be
you
a
will
potential
date),
but
not
of
maintaining
relationships.
(mere
exposure
Familiarity
starts
proof:
perceive
as
we
to
be
a
may
social
may
be
more
effect)
lead
to
factor
more
and
therefore
better
liking.
becomes
attracted
well-accepted
in
In
this
cognitive.
to
people
who
society
.
22%
–
only
to
complex
to
–
(literally
were
the
establishing
next
door
friends
relationships
to
each
other
those
were
Proximity
as
indicate
they
of
10%
of
who
lived
residents
two
who
doors
lived
apart
on
were
opposite
friends
ends
of
the
friends.
of
did
apartments
asked
proximity
related
residents
Residents
assigned
apartment
lived
were
what
–
–
effect
Friendship
you
run
sort
of
may
may
into
polite
Friendship
things
friendly
have
be
each
several
induced
other
,
so
by
potential
simple
you
must
explanations.
courtesy
engage
norms:
in
some
interaction.
may
interactions:
for
of
the
other
Social
meeting
friendship:
–
In
some
of
participants
meeting
established
familiarity
.
friendship
(Westgate
live—they
available.
people
friends
and
complex
is
PROXIMITY
likelihood
Schachter
apartment
preferences
RELATIONSHIPS
social
hall
Festinger
,
dating
be.
understanding
Proximity
hypothesis
suggest
intelligent,
way
in
physical
not
is
they
matching
Researchers
specify
date—how
it.
Proximity
Essential
✪
so
inuence
SOCIAL
popular
relationships
phenomenon,
factors
and
date.
concluded
already
outgoing,
the
not?
(1971)
after
her
approach
characteristics
support
did
expressing
Berscheid
the
participants
attend
computer
to
be
prior
determinant
After
study
POR.
be
you
not
to
the
will
be
result
keep
of
awkward
relationship.
the
running
you
expectation
into
need
each
to
of
future
other
,
establish
so
a
SOCIAL
EXPLANATIONS:
Essential
FAMILIARITY
faces
which
to
liked
be
Moreland
increases
liking.
It
is
easier
to
like
are
used
to
than
something
we
don’t
have
more
and
natural
(1968)
exposure
repeatedly
experimentally
effect:
produces
merely
a
participants
were
faces
in
order
,
a
random
how
they
than
liked
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Mate
rate
or
a
for
that
and
some
faces
some
time
faces,
Jones
et
and
al
it
existence
to
an
object.
selection
After
the
the
exposed
of
In
shown
of
more
rated
observed
(2007)—social
as
more
by
may
be
desirable
women,
surrounded
as
by
were
reported
Beach
(1992)
setting.
Four
conducted
female
a
similar
confederates
study
of
in
similar
attended
attended
sessions,
classes.
and
At
5
a
large
lecture
sessions,
class
the
the
fourth
end
of
one
the
photographs
of
these
on
of
dimensions
a
number
intelligent,
honest).
confederate
four
As
appeared
another
actually
term
in
college.
(such
class,
and
as
did
not
One
asked
more
higher
another
attend
were
to
interesting,
the
the
sessions,
students
women
predicted,
in
10
shown
rate
them
attractive,
frequently
the
the
ratings.
that
proof
Conclusion
socially
when
transmitted.
the
opposed
other
them
any
photographs
were
15
his
participants
was
of
object
understanding
surrounded
alone
of
preferences
men
shown
others.
each
supported
being
preference
study
frequently
frequently
with.
of
mere
more
any
appearance
experience
Zayonc
shown
something
a
we
been
understanding
Familiarity
✪
had
more.
men
to
are
when
Women
Researchers
shown
they
are
may
shown
to
use
conclude
social
clues
that
and
when
mimic
forming
the
attraction
attitude
of
women
other
women
men.
men.
Procedure
Female
faces
participants
and
asked
shown
the
picture
in
same
each
face
was
or
neutral
a
in
the
rate
pairs
pair
shown
study
their
of
had
faces
a
staring
were
again,
female
at
shown
attractiveness.
the
but
face
man’
s
at
pairs
Later
this
the
face
of
time
side.
with
male
they
were
one
The
either
female
a
smile
expression.
Participants
faces
to
were
then
asked
to
rate
the
attractiveness
did
not
change
of
the
again.
Results
–
The
that
–
were
Ratings
that
–
second
staring
ratings
the
second
a
smiling
were
at
of
accompanied
in
had
Ratings
round
not
woman
lower
the
round
for
man’
s
by
a
were
staring
pictures
face
female
with
higher
at
the
where
a
for
the
faces
staring
the
male
the
neutral
for
face
at
it.
pictures
face.
woman
was
expression.
Figure
Jones
6.1.2
Role
Attribution—the
SNOITINIFED
behaviour
by
of
process
assigning
of
explaining
to
it
other
(either
people’
s
situational
or
dispositional)
Attributional
style—a
styles
preference
causes
to
a
for
attributing
partner’
s
positive/
behaviours
Patterns
of
that
al
Photographs
be
in
the
experiment
(2007)
in
to
used
each
personal
other
thought
of
in
the
as
relationships
course
of
interaction;
strategies
of
resolving
they
can
interpersonal
conict
situational/dispositional
negative
et
communication
causes
6.1
between
information
(such
as
feelings,
disclosure
concerns,
of
personal
fears)
to
another
person
accommodation—shifts
occur
Self-disclosure—purposeful
partners
to
in
communication
better
adapt
Human
relationships
133
ESSENTIAL
UNDERSTANDING
Once
a
to
maintained.
be
personal
relationship
constructive
communication
this.
approaches
Several
communication
has
Relationships
is
used
penetration
is
have
in
been
established,
sometimes
a
major
tried
to
personal
break
means
explain
of
it
needs
apart,
and
preventing
how
exactly
relationships:
–
social
–
approaches
focusing
on
attributional
–
approaches
focusing
on
patterns
factors
negative
behaviours
enduring
study
were
that
as
from
theory
relationships
develop,
supercial
layers
of
self-disclosure.
Sheldon
can
to
be
applied
Facebook
(2009)
See
to
1973)
claims
progressively
intimacy
demonstrated
communication
Sheldon
focusing
the
attribution
move
through
of
on
that
the
patterns
relationships,
theory
between
–
Rusbult
styles
Heider
build
(1958)
that
there
typically
are
made
individual
in
a
differences
relationship.
attributional
styles
(that
in
how
Research
is,
on
negative
less
in
a
attributional
families
that
sought
(2003)
patterns
of
accommodation
be
and
associated
to
try
with
strategies
to
resolve
more
destructive
which
it
sustainable
and/or
passive
Zembrodt
See
of
(1983)
conceptualized
accommodation
Rusbult
and
(voice,
Zembrodt
four
exit,
loyalty
,
(1983)
did
and
not
Krokoff
avoid
(1989)
conict
demonstrated
but
solved
it
that
couples
constructively
attributions
shows
attributing
communication
opposed
patterns
Gottman
more
satised
with
their
relationship.
See
Gottman
that
and
negative
(2003)
on
were
are
to
with
and
who
claim
Stratton
distressed
disagreement
can
as
and
possible
attributional
by
in
that
factors
associated
strategies.
(2009)
proposed
are
example,
Stratton
using
the
constructively
–
theory
For
focusing
that
acknowledge
neglect).
Approaches
See
situational
styles
T
aylor
individuals
interaction
describe
friends.
(Altman,
and
partner)
accommodation.
demonstrate
penetration
the
demonstrated
help.
Approaches
Social
of
predominant
therapeutic
of
behaviour
relationships.
qualitative
styles
theory
to
positive
Krokoff
(1989)
dispositional
THEORY
Altman
Social
claims
shallow
level.
The
of
that
level
Intimacy
individuals
with
Taylor
penetration
(1973)
a
and
each
act
is
start
theory
characterized
sharing
et
When
you
disclose
to
like
you
more.
When
you
other
so,
of
that
a
by
Altman
relationship
to
by
a
more
greater
deep
and
theory
T
aylor
move
The
from
intimate
and
disclose
liking
the
in
communication
has
been
shown
to
to
those
they
initially
to
another
person,
that
personality
concerns
social
have
a
to
another
person,
you
act
of
self-disclosure
actors
may
that
peeled
the
In
layer
off,
this
used
after
layer
moving
from
layer
of
the
of
onion
to
metaphor
,
personal
of
an
the
illustrate
as
interpersonal
individual’
s
layer
core
of
supercial
(“the
real
layers
of
me”).
like.
person
tend
to
tends
start
be
is
in
an
the
produces
process.
important
responsible
for
Since
this
component
Figure
maintaining
Essential
6.2
Layers
an
are
similar
to
the
a
person’
s
personality
RESEARCH
patterns
develop,
is
to
sometimes
range
relationships.
✪
self
is
theory
.
more.
both
self-disclosure
Social
metaphor
penetration
relationships
self-disclosure:
emotions
onion
social
1994).
more
person
words,
increased
is
disclose
al
People
In
their
self-disclosure
(Collins
–
liking
in
communication
–
–
proposed
individuals
penetration
other
.
of
effects
of
(1973)—social
Sheldon
(2009)—self-disclosure
understanding
penetration
among
theory
Facebook
can
on
Facebook
Method
explain
communication
users.
and
Participants
answering
procedure
were
given
questions
individual
online,
responses
on
a
set
about
they
of
questionnaires.
interactions
were
instructed
with
to
When
another
base
their
Aim
T
o
investigate
self-disclosure,
social
attraction,
trust
as
predictors
of
Facebook
concrete
individual,
the
person
they
talked
predictability
to
and
one
the
most
on
Facebook.
relationships.
Results
Participants
–
243
undergraduate
students
(average
age
The
perception
especially
person
–
the
on
Unit
6—Human
relationships
attraction
Increased
number
of
drives
topics
self-disclosure,
discussed
with
the
Facebook.
disclosure
predictability
134
of
20).
(less
was
associated
uncertainty)
with
about
the
higher
person,
which
in
turn
the
was
associated
so-called
people
talk
experience
with
uncertainty
with
and
each
they
greater
reduction
other
,
are
the
able
to
trust.
This
theory:
less
like
supports
the
uncertainty
each
Conclusion
more
other
Researchers
they
Facebook
more.
This
disclosure
behaviour
THE
ROLE
OF
ATTRIBUTIONAL
Attribution
theory
originally
claims
people
are
that
understand
assign
the
causes
behaviour
to
of
behaviours
by
Heider
psychologists”
others;
they
world
more
predictable
with
(1958)
who
this
observe.
and
causes
assigned
to
the
increases
liking,
try
end
This
In
to
divided
into
two
they
makes
maintaining
thus
easier
to
behaviour
because
he
is
situational
behaviour
“he
must
was
an
“he
is
increases
self-disclosure,
and
completes
circle.
the
the
like.
friend’
s
trust,
trust
self-disclosure
of
others
may
mutual
be
the
way
attributions
important
in
are
establishing
made
and
trust.
relationships
may
style
are
where
characterized
the
partners
by
a
positive
assume
best
intent
be
the
part
of
each
other
and
refrain
from
automatically
(when
we
decide
the
responsible
have
for
exceeded
the
the
other
person
when
a
negative
behaviour
is
that
In
a
positive
attributional
style
positive
behaviours
behaviour
,
speed
attributed
to
the
partner’
s
personality
while
negative
limit
behaviours
are
attributed
(situational
factors).
to
adverse
circumstances
reckless”)
was
caused
have
(when
by
exceeded
we
external
the
decide
factors,
speed
limit
that
for
the
example,
because
there
emergency”).
Essential
✪
must
attributions
RESEARCH
Stratton
(2003)—attributional
style
understanding
Distress
negative
Predictability
about
between
they
types:
attributions
personality
example,
certain
those
navigate.
are
for
to
the
observed.
someone’
s
communication
disclose
more
relationships,
communicated
blaming
dispositional
of
online
being
which
interpersonal
and
on
broadly
to
in
initially
(predictability).
likelihood
attributional
The
leads
increases
Healthy
social
that
people
STYLES
proposed
“naive
conclude
friends
in
family
styles,
families
that
attended
family
therapy
Results
relationships
attributional
in
may
especially
be
associated
towards
the
with
–
children.
Parents
often
children
–
All
of
used
cause
the
attributions
bad
parents
which
implied
that
their
outcomes.
in
these
families
made
more
Aim
dispositional
T
o
observe
attributional
styles
in
troubled
families
therapeutic
for
their
children
than
that
themselves
sought
attributions
(for
example,
when
children
do
something
help.
wrong
it
is
something
because
wrong
they
it
is
want
to,
because
but
they
when
are
parents
forced
to
by
do
the
Method
situation).
A
qualitative
research
study—observation
and
content
–
analysis
of
Negative
behaviours
controllable
more
children
often
than
were
described
negative
as
behaviours
of
parents.
Participants
Stratton
of
transcripts.
(2003)
analysed
lms
of
family
therapy
sessions
Conclusion
from
eight
families
with
either
step-parents
or
adoptive
Researchers
parents.
All
of
the
children
in
the
household
and
both
assume
parents
attended
the
recorded
they
help)
the
using
a
observed
comprehensive
behaviours.
The
1,799,
with
around
(that
how
common
is
total
4
in
the
recordings
checklist
number
of
for
were
coding
for
these
because
troubled
they
families
sought
(we
therapeutic
the
attributional
per
they
least
at
a
and
the
parents
was
the
as
consistent
children
being
as
with
“blaming
causing
negative
affected
by
these
in
relationships
coded
analysed
minute
in
style
outcomes.
This
associated
with
shows
how
distress
family
is
attributional
attributions
attributions
are,
that
troubled
children”—describing
outcomes
interactions
were
sessions.
Procedure
All
concluded
the
per
family
negative
(blaming)
atrributions.
was
family
therapy
situation).
Human
relationships
135
Patterns
of
Essential
✪
accommodation
understanding
Patterns
of
disagreement
associated
with
to
try
higher
speech
a
to
Accommodation
resolving
Rusbult
essays
in
adapt
can
also
and
four
shifts
(voice)
time,
of
the
partners’
other
.
thought
of
as
a
E XIT: acknowledge
dissatisfaction and actively
attempt to improve the
work to end or abuse
situation
the relationship
as
accommodation
in
VOICE: acknowledge
dissatisfaction and actively
are
strategies.
occur
each
over
the
strategy
LOYALTY: not necessarily
NEGLECT: not necessarily
acknowledge dissatisfaction
acknowledge dissatisfaction
for
(1983)
main
analysed
student
communication
resolve
conict
or
disagreement
strategies
are:
•
acknowledge
voice:
exit:
in
a
relationship.
The
Passive
wait
•
Relationship
Gottman
dissatisfaction
and
try
to
improve
the
dissatisfaction
and
try
to
end
the
not
a
home
for
the
situation
neglect:
not
acknowledge
relationship
to
to
dissatisfaction
and
passively
not
improve
dissatisfaction
and
allow
the
deteriorate.
time.
In
were
more
fact,
ESSENTIAL
UNDERSTANDING
This
natural
topic
"6.1.2
is
a
Role
of
Self-disclosure,
conict
positive
resolution
maintaining
continuation
communication
the
in
of
attributional
through
topic,
style
and
accommodation
relationship
and
Supporting
constructive
are
preventing
a
all
related
large
illustrate
to
break-up.
specic
researchers
were
also
interested
in
creating
a
of
stages
through
relationship
break-up;
that
relationship
is,
understanding
dissolution
LeFebvre,
specic
factors
that
trigger
this
prominent
models
that
have
been
the
is
an
Four
Horsemen
evidence-based
elements
of
a
of
proposed
relationship
model
relationship
deterioration:
in
this
criticism,
stonewalling.
relationship
that
that
are
identies
most
model
online
both
evidence
for
stage,
grave
and
separate
entirety
so
is
it
aspects
include
Brody
their
examples.
support
to
the
requires
difcult
to
However
,
of
these
following.
(2014)
investigate
during
the
and
last
applied
how
after
three
dressing,
Brody
Flora
contempt,
and
See
“Gottman’s
and
Duck’
s
Rollie
Facebook
and
users
a
break-up.
stages
of
the
They
model—
resurrection.
See
LeFebvre,
(2014)
(2003)
of
their
found
relationship
that
negativity
relational
breadth
history
and
in
lack
partners’
of
predicted
lower
satisfaction
and
break-
of
in
a
six-month
interval.
See
Flora
and
Segrin
(2003)
defensiveness
Four
Horsemen
in
the
area
typically
relies
on
retrospective
self-
of
measures
(2006)
ve-stage
model
of
social
which
model
views
relationship
desirability
are
open
to
a
variety
of
biases
continuous
process
stages.
See
that
goes
Rollie
through
and
Duck
or
effects
of
reconstructive
such
memory
.
relationship
is
also
an
ethical
concern
because
participants
may
be
breakdown
required
consecutive
Segrin
accounts
There
a
in
studies,
apocalypse”.
breakdown—this
as
to
four
predictive
as
Rollie
opportunity
together
.
end
empirically
and
the
apocalypse—
report
–
have
resolution
contrary
,
Researchers
area
Research
and
not
the
satised.
and
up
its
less
constructively
On
following.
Gottman’
s
this
do
or
do
conict
was
over
process.
–
–
were
Examples
Blackburn
(2006)
Blackburn
include
studies
their
in
issue.
disagreement
dissatisfaction
relationship.
conict
with
high-conict
and
in
engaging
the
progresses
social
The
anger
a
observed
while
specic
found
identifying
support
or
marital
longitudinal
models.
behave
which
couples
models
of
research
Duck’
s
model
these
this
theoretical
–
However
,
conict
longitudinal
were
laboratory
solved
their
change
number
a
with
who
with
such
in
Couples
low-conict
constructive
previous
relationships”.
a
or
expressing
avoided
that
relationships
the
that
conducted
couples.
associated
couples
who
why
personal
strategies
(1989)
of
either
satised
experience
for
on
showed
couples
Explanations
Krokoff
studies
necessarily
explained
6.1.3
conict
environment
discussion
Results
acknowledge
and
observational
their
acknowledge
loyalty:
6.3
four
relationship
•
relationship to deteriorate
used
situation
•
and passively allow the
situation to improve
self-report
strategies
Figure
to
and passively wait for
conict.
Zembrodt
identify
passive
to
be
constructively
concept
which
more
interpersonal
to
the
it
satisfaction
and/or
theory
situation
styles
resolve
marital
destructive
communication
describes
to
acknowledge
ev itcurtseD
In
and
that
ev itcurtsno C
opposed
Active
accommodation
a
series
to
recreate
hurtful
episodes
in
their
memory
.
of
(2006)
THEORY
Gottman’s
Four
The
Institute,
Gottman
Gottman
into
and
couples
interviews
136
Unit
Julie
Horsemen
through
and
headed
Gottman,
tries
of
by
predict
6—Human
husband
conducts
observation,
to
relationship
and
wife
longitudinal
questionnaires
how
relationships
relationships
apocalypse
John
research
and
will
unfold.
Research
at
the
combination
are
invited
interaction
of
into
is
Gottman
Institute
quantitative
the
and
laboratory
recorded
with
utilizes
(“the
two
a
qualitative
Love
rich
data.
Lab”)
Couples
and
remote-controlled
their
cameras.
Biometric
and
see
data
projected
both
addition
report
the
to
from
on
a
the
people
this,
polygraph
same
and
their
relationship
measures
and
is
screen
recorded
so
that
biometric
history
individual
is
simultaneously
researchers
data
in
studied
real
•
can
time.
through
In
self-
Contempt—treating
someone
sarcasm,
insulting
is
•
interviews.
Four
Horsemen
is
a
popular
name
for
four
of
predictive
relationships
of
relationship
that
have
been
deterioration
proven
Criticism—this
refers
to
a
general
(for
to
no
reason,
predictor
of
someone
for
or
eye
mocking
rolling.
It
divorce.
claims
example
or
to
shifting
be
the
under
blame
others.
ignoring
example
conversation
the
p a r t n e r,
for
be
example,
statement
for
disrespect
partner
S t o n e w a l l i n g —e s s e n t i a l l y
withdrawing
f ro m
and
re f u s i n g
divorce).
to
•
primary
with
the
main
•
elements
the
Defensiveness—when
attack
the
example
considered
onto
The
for
interact
with
the
partner
or
p re t e n d i n g
not
to
that
h e a r.
expresses
a
example,
“you
dispositional
always
attribution
forget
to
about
feed
the
a
person,
for
dog”.
THEORY
Rollie
and
According
is
a
Duck
to
process,
observations
stages
of
stages
are
•
The
Rollie
not
of
couples
by
one
anyone.
It
or
dyadic
(2006),
They
which
led
that
is,
a
them
The
stage
to
or
both
cannot
silent
partners,
include
social
but
relationship
breakdown
formulate
be
stage—dissatisfaction
may
of
is
is
or
ve
that
•
the
The
Alliances
discontent
shared
•
Grave
to
their
issues
with
other
.
attributional
styles
and
of
discontent
Depending
on
and
their
•
accommodation,
either
be
with
are
shared
built
each
to
this
order
break
to
up
decision
and
start
with
wider
partners
are
save
and
to
can
prepared
face.
resolved
support
from
community
.
reinforce
come
that
Partners
their
up
with
will
be
defend
told
their
arguments
to
others.
recover
They
are
what
seeking
a
Resurrection—partners
redene
constructively
other
.
dressing—stories
in
be
latent.
stage—partners
may
people
justify
may
become
Problems
experienced
not
stage
and
social
decision
their
this
skipped.
is
withdrawal,
voice
each
at
avoided
others.
resentment.
patterns
breakdown
conict
longitudinal
assumption
stage—partners
discuss
model
relationship
conducted
breakdown.
sequential;
rumination
Duck
event.
intrapsychic
with
The
and
relationship
internally
•
an
(2006)—ve-stage
they
from
looking
the
for
relationship.
in
future
relationships
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Online
Duck’s
LeFebvre,
Blackburn
and
Brody
•
understanding
break-up
(2006)
(2014)—relationship
behaviours
broadly
follow
Rollie
During
relationship
minimized
and
presence
stages.
dissolution
their
of
relationship
dissolution:
Facebook
their
partner
status,
on
activity;
by
Facebook
participants
cleared
removing
untagging
or
away
their
deleting
the
Facebook
wall
postings
Aim
and
T
o
apply
Rollie
and
Duck’
s
(2006)
relationship
pictures,
to
investigate
how
Facebook
users
behave
during
and
after
a
observed
engaged
•
After
226
wall
students.
rid
and
completed
an
online
survey
that
asked
ended
questions
ended
within
about
the
past
relationship,
a
romantic
two
years.
relationship
They
rated
that
the
the
communication
both
of
their
partners
(that
or
dissolution:
unwanted
other
Some
participants
remains
visible
such
connections
participants
defriended,
as
to
continued
previous
their
deleted
frequency
of
with
with
the
during
the
face-to-face
partner
,
partner
and
after
and
the
content
analysis
was
reported
behaviours
to
analyse
to
their
ex-partner
and
or
some
social
network.
Impression
of
management
also
online
became
prominent.
self-presentation.
These
Many
included
behaviours
were
and
on
to
evoke
jealousy
or
regret
from
previous
partners.
online
that
break-up.
used
access
had
Conclusion
Researchers
Rollie
Inductive
actions
seriousness
aimed
occurred
the
associated
positive
communication
online
“stalking”).
Facebook
behaviours
online
of
open-
the
that
displays
procedure
blocked
of
of
postings
ex-partner
.
Participants
in
relationship
getting
Method
public
break-up.
Participants
college
other
online
is,
both
hiding
dissolution
affection;
model
and
and
claim
Duck’
s
that
the
(2006)
results
model
of
of
this
study
relationship
support
dissolution,
data.
especially
the
last
three
stages:
the
social
stage,
grave
Results
dressing
Researchers
identied
the
most
both
and
the
break-up.
during
after
common
online
and
resurrection.
behaviours
Human
relationships
137
RESEARCH
Essential
Diverse
✪
maintain
Flora
Segrin
(2003)—relational
in
history
–
understanding
experiences
a
and
relational
history
are
necessary
In
and
addition,
through
to
satisfaction
relationship
relationship
questionnaire
relationship.
Relationship
development
development
completed
by
development
the
was
assessed
breadth—a
participants
breadth
is
the
alone.
extent
to
which
Aim
partners
T
o
examine
how
perceptions
of
relational
history
have
well-being
in
dating
and
married
that
old
married
and
couples
native
and
speakers
66
of
dating
and
sexually
couples,
at
least
20
years
English.
the
partner
affect
(such
in
course
the
cognitions
in
Method
the
as
–
A
stability)
of
relationship
were
taken
semi-structured
where
in
a
present
in
later
assess
same
with
(oral
answered
story-like
the
well-being
twice
interview
participants
questions
(such
cognitions
(such
as
as
thinking
course
was
the
of
the
a
right
deep
relationship.
emotional
of
a
person
for
emotional
The
reactions
relationship,
the
them)
more
you
and
connection)
behaviours,
experienced
“broader”
your
procedure
Measurements
and
intimate),
feeling
and
relationship
–
behaviours
couples.
Participants
65
specic
predicted
becoming
relational
experienced
a
room.
A
of
coding
was
interval.
used
been.
their
after
partner
scheme
was
Results
Break-up
open-ended
while
has
(satisfaction
six-month
history)
set
fashion
a
development
was
the
and
lower
start
development
of
satisfaction
the
study)
breadth
and
at
were
time
2
related
negative
oral
(six
to
months
little
history
relational
appraisals.
used
Conclusion
to
the
interview
transcripts
against
a
set
of
Researchers
scales
such
as
fondness,
affection
and
negativity
cognitive
the
spouse,
among
of
in
the
criticized
in
terms
area
of
of
relationship
dissolution
methodological
quality
has
and
been
in
self-report
6.2
area
measures
typically
relies
on
that
open
to
are
and
Competition—interpersonal
SNOITINIFED
the
benets
interests
the
of
retrospective
a
variety
of
competitive
Such
biases
studies
of
a
interests
another
of
or
the
person
behaviour
is
“I
escalates
benets
ESSENTIAL
While
behaviour
it
is
for
long-
desirability
or
effects
of
reconstructive
in
require
their
participants
memory
that
to
can
recreate
cause
hurtful
some
level
intergroup
actor
or
at
behaviour
the
group.
cost
The
of
win,
you
lose”.
group.
The
outcomes
“I
you
win”
win,
and
becomes
explicit,
or
“I
of
cooperative
lose,
you
behaviour
are
the
interests
cooperation
cannot
not
be
simply
Why
do
individuals
From
the
evolutionary
outcome
Cooperation
occurs
both
on
the
interpersonal
level
it
takes
intergroup
level.
Interpersonal
cooperation
is
also
the
as
prosocial
of
or
intergroup
another
cooperation
is
behaviour.
known
theory
as
Intrinsic
interpersonal
altruism
behaviour
person
or
another
reects
simply
a
sum
cooperation
reduced
total
of
to
it,
between
–
kin
group
–
reciprocal
behaviours.
–
negative-state
because
individual
cooperate
or
selection
altruism
(Hamilton
theory
relief
1964)
(T
rivers
model
of
1971)
altruism
(Cialdini,
Kenrick
compete?
standpoint
competition
is
more
empathy-altruism
compete
for
resources
to
of
these
maximize
behaviour”.
Theories
to
potential.
explain
cooperation
on
the
individual
include:
138
Unit
6—Human
relationships
level
model
(Batson
1981).
easily
Some
individuals
survival
and
When
–
their
either
win”
1976)
explained:
of
harm.
UNDERSTANDING
intergroup
individuals,
behavioural,
necessary
conict
Cooperation—interpersonal
that
of
are
competition
known
form
social
psychological
the
competition
as
episodes
–
of
variety
dynamics
Cooperation
that
a
memory.
–
this
Group
6.2.1
that
experiences
relationships.
such
ethical
considerations.
Research
affective
research
Research
–
and
others.
lasting
Evaluation
concluded
toward
theories
are
covered
in
"6.3.2
Prosocial
Why
do
groups
cooperate
or
compete?
Using
behavioural
Gillespie
–
A
prominent
theory
to
explain
competition
and
between
groups
is
realistic
conict
humans
(Campbell
1965).
It
is
supported
by
the
studies
conict
and
is
the
result
cooperation
Sherif
et
Social
identity
an
al
mere
al
of
competition
the
Behavioural
modern
theory
and
It
of
to
(T
ajfel,
out-group
into
claims
over
that
T
urner
claiming
scarce
1971)
that
resources
goals.
See
in
groups.
“Unit
3
a
group
groups.
West
may
See
be
enhanced
by
Burton-Chellew,
Ross-
(2010)
provides
correlates
Cooperative
–
been
De
Dreu
are
results
See
“3.1.1
of
et
Sociocultural
Decety
to
al
al
associated
with
Decety
al
et
were
that
after
more
groups.
found
conict
in
humans
variables.
found
other
(2004)
conict
intergroup
biological
(2012)
with
et
intergroup
and
participants
compete
–
of
behaviour
linked
oxytocin
behaviour”.
game
within
between
and
Biological
in-group
discrimination
Ross-
cooperation
intergroup
superordinate
distinct
theory”
See
De
distinct
cooperation
taking
likely
and
to
Dreu
brain
a
dose
of
pre-emptively
et
al
(2012).
regions
competition.
to
be
See
(2004)
theory
psychology
individuals
behavioural
result
explanation,
identity
approach
1961).
have
categorization
Social
between
is
et
(1961)
alternative
favouritism
In
(Sherif
that
Robber’
s
Gillespie
Cave
Burton-Chellew,
demonstrated
theory
competition
(RCT)
theory
(2010)
and
between
cooperation
game
West
cooperation
and
game
groups
is
and
competition
often
studied
as
part
of
theory
THEORY
Why
do
individuals
Competition
is
evolution
and
natural
easily
resources
to
cooperate
explained
selection.
maximize
their
from
or
compete?
the
point
Individuals
survival
of
view
compete
of
the
for
chance
potential.
•
Reciprocal
one
However
,
humans
and
non-human
animals
that
of
cooperative
behaviour,
both
demonstrate
extrinsic
and
presents
an
evolutionary
theories
(altruism).
puzzle,
that
offer
a
There
have
especially
solution
to
been
this
will
Kin
selection
theory
passed
on
to
further
may
theory
help
(T
rivers
another
if
a
1971)
return
states
favour
that
is
sometime
help
me
in
in
the
return
future
when
I
(I
will
need
help
you,
and
it).
intrinsic
several
Empathy-altruism
model
humans,
postulates
(Batson
1981)—applied
to
prominent
this
model
the
existence
of
“true”
puzzle.
altruism
•
be
a
•
cooperation
will
intrinsic.
you
This
genes
altruism
organism
anticipated
lot
the
generations.
(Hamilton
1964)
claims
caused
by
genuine
empathetic
concern
for
that
others.
organisms
behave
behaviour
maximizes
For
example,
share
altruistically
the
someone
common
genes
towards
survival
may
and
help
this
value
a
others
of
relative
behaviour
when
their
because
may
this
genes.
they
Some
of
these
theories
are
covered
in
"6.3.2
Prosocial
behaviour”.
increase
THEORY
Why
One
do
of
groups
the
rst
competition
(RCT)
goals
inuential
and
(Campbell
conict
arises
and
opposing
groups
are
cooperate
1965).
This
groups
competing
goals,
develop
theories
cooperation
when
was
compete?
to
to
states
the
intergroup
conict
that
opposing
scarce
norms,
explain
realistic
theory
have
for
according
in-group
or
theory
,
intergroup
(incompatible)
resources.
display
However
,
theory
are
acts
These
the
of
reason
and
they
When
and
discriminate
RESEARCH
Sherif
✪
Essential
et
al
over
conict
Introduction
of
scarce
and
that
goals;
be
the
more
case,
be
groups
that
is,
cooperate
their
successful
existing
discrimination
will
reduced
RCT
supported
if
goals
they
they
have
compatible
work
stereotypes,
or
when
are
together
.
prejudice
and
eliminated.
why
has
been
by
classic
research
studies
by
Sherif.
out-groups.
(1961)—the
Robber’s
Cave
studies
Participants
resources
and
opposing
goals
goals
24
white
not
discrimination
superordinate
is
reduces
conict
lower-middle-class
know
each
other
prior
12-year-old
to
meeting
in
boys.
the
The
boys
summer
did
camp.
and
Procedure
encourages
claims
in-group
understanding
Competition
induces
against
may
this
Muzafer
favouritism
RCT
superordinate
and
results
cooperation.
These
of
a
eld
studies
summer
name)
and
camp
were
for
included
conducted
boys
three
in
(Robber’
s
the
realistic
Cave
was
setting
the
camp’
s
stages.
Human
relationships
139
Stage
Boys
of
1:
group
were
the
placed
Rattlers
–
formation
into
and
two
the
groups
Eagles.
that
Each
later
group
took
was
the
out-group
the
names
ags
of
the
other
one
because
the
two
groups
at
opposite
ends
of
the
camp
site.
Groups
internal
norms,
structure,
traditions
and
they
started
identifying
themselves
as
2:
The
two
and
the
groups
a
series
activities
and
came
researchers
arranged
All
inter-group
3:
conict
losers;
of
were
to
know
as
competitive
designed
winners
about
posed
so
received
other’
s
camp
activities
that
an
each
the
there
existence,
where
could
as
were
tug
clear
prize
and
was
the
too
the
group
only
of
war
.
winners
a
nature
goals
succeed
heavy
camp
heavy
together
leaders)
such
attractive
insults,
raided
burned
their
cabins.
reduction
changed
example,
around
conict
(who
even
of
we
the
are
activities
by
creating
interdependent—one
if
it
cooperated
with
the
other
.
“we”.
For
Stage
traded
and
rituals,
group
and
group
quickly
situations
developed
other
were
Researchers
staying
the
initially
Stage
unaware
discrimination—they
of
they
to
the
of
conict
truck
broke
for
one
down
team
managed
introduction
of
behaviour
that
to
and
but
used
had
when
bump
such
was
was
start
to
to
be
both
the
superordinate
drive
the
boys
pushed.
teams
truck.
goals
worked
In
a
It
response
reduction
observed.
losers
Conclusion
received
nothing,
result
this,
so
their
goals
were
incompatible.
As
a
The
of
boys
clearly
core
scarce
–
in-group
cause
favouritism—they
focused
on
their
resources,
always
spoke
intergroup
positively
about
their
and
conict
cooperation
is
is
competition
possible
when
over
there
are
similarities
superordinate
and
of
demonstrated:
goals.
in-group
THEORY
Alternative
Essential
explanation—social
identity
theory
understanding
✪
In-group
be
the
favouritism
result
of
mere
and
Social
out-group
categorization
discrimination
into
distinct
may
groups.
Social
explanation
Social
Gaps
in
provides
competition
–
It
has
these
theory
a
powerful
and
been
explanation
cooperation,
observed
that
but
the
it
of
is
rst
out-group
(T
ajfel,
gaps
T
urner
in
posits
1969)
provided
an
RCT
.
that
favouritism
and
derogatory
verbal
out-group
not
in-group
signs
individuals
group,
becomes
of
their
favouritism
in
the
Robber’
s
Cave
the
(in
the
other
form
team)
studies
just
learned
group,
about
the
competition
existence
over
of
social
when
of
with
a
the
resources
self-esteem
linked
to
the
social
status
the
individuals
pursue
opportunities
to
of
increase
distinctiveness
(“us”
versus
of
their
“them”).
group
For
in
relation
example,
they
to
other
will
sacrice
boys
other
had
so
of
benet
yet
of
their
own
group
if
this
sacrice
increases
group.
positive
no
identify
were
the
T
echnically
effects
in-group
groups
observed
both
categorization—when
positive
about
are
exhaustive.
discrimination
comments
discrimination
intergroup
that
had
for
identity
theory
theory
RCT
and
RCT
identity
identity
distinctiveness.
See
“3.1.1
Social
identity
theory”
been
in
“Unit
3
Sociocultural
approach
to
behaviour”.
created.
–
There
are
groups
cases
do
not
when
conict
compete
over
is
sparked
even
when
resources.
THEORY
Behavioural
In
game
contemporary
between
Game
chooses
utility
.
other
for
140
game
theory
interaction
makers).
psychology
individuals
behavioural
of
is
The
Unit
or
or
is
often
and
competition
studied
as
part
of
of
of
agents,
many
means
which
6—Human
that
that
agent
social
approach
rational
action
one
stock
market
found
many
political
more
rational
actions
agent
cooperation
groups
theory
.
course
describing
and
mathematical
two
Being
the
a
theory
to
modelling
“agents”
each
of
the
maximizes
depend
makes
processes
on
game
such
relationships
its
the
sciences
Behavioural
behave
in
is
expected
always
coincide
theory
.
However
,
actions
of
suitable
bargaining,
the
not
may
always
be
and
game
typical
agents
theory
as
the
(decision-
exchange
in
other
warfare.
with
the
these
In
looks
at
rational
and
predictions
the
how
situations.
deviations
irrational”.
theory
business,
has
marketing,
areas.
theory
completely
Game
economics,
interaction
predictable.
“predictably
and
applications
words
therfore
of
from
of
people
Human
actually
behaviour
does
not
mathematical
rationality
Dan
Ariely
,
game
themselves
we
are
RESEARCH
Essential
Ross-Gillespie
and
competition
between
between
West
for
understanding
Cooperation
✪
of
Burton-Chellew,
humans
may
actually
be
the
result
the
but
(2010)—competition
group
costly
for
(a
return
the
of
two
individual
(a
causes
MU
for
return
cooperation
each
of
0.5
one
contributed),
MU
for
each
one
contributed).
groups.
In
the
no-competition
(control)
group
there
were
no
other
participants
were
Aim
conditions.
T
o
study
behaviour
competitive
in
incentive
a
public
for
goods
combined
game
group
with
an
added
In
performance.
the
also
Method
the
Experiment,
independent
measures
design.
competition
given
a
combined
ranked
(experimental)
chance
earn
performance
according
participants
to
of
to
the
the
group
additional
of
sum
their
total
depending
group.
of
highest-ranking
MU
their
group
Groups
on
were
contributions,
each
received
and
an
Procedure
additional
A
situation
other
was
groups
modelled
for
where
nancial
groups
rewards
(a
competed
so-called
public
goods
game).
The
each
In
group
the
was
randomly
played
game
each
a
divided
public
into
goods
participant
groups
game
received
of
among
an
four
,
themselves.
endowment
presence
repeatedly
and
monetary
fraction
kept
the
of
any
units
this
MU
sum
they
investment
between
the
(MU).
(0–20
did
were
four
have
been
MU)
to
a
then
participants,
by
so
contribute
group
contribute.
Biological
MU
two
They
for
investment
was
correlates
of
behaviour
higher
individual
linked
to
biological
intergroup
conict
Dreu
et
al
(2012),
in
a
within
benecial
intergroup
of
the
of
dilemma
oxytocin
compete
game,
participants
with
other
found
were
groups
that
more
out
of
after
likely
in
fear
that
engage
to
a
in
role
in-group
rst.
In
other
words,
defence-motivated
of
oxytocin
and,
as
a
in
they
effect,
et
al
participants
humans
a
others
more
cooperation
increasing
and
SNOITINIFED
Discrimination—negative
people;
on
their
it
involves
group
treating
are
that
by
or
in
(2004)
played
a
a
group
of
behaviour
people
attitude
will
likely
This
computer
competition
regions
were
against
found
to
and
between
fMRI
study
either
in
where
cooperation
person.
selectively
Distinct
associated
with
competition:
cooperation—orbitofrontal
competition—inferior
with
the
cortex
parietal
cortex
and
medial
cortex.
Researchers
argue
frameworks
involved
need
with
to
process
expect
in
towards
an
unfair
a
group
way
of
Social
based
are
an
individual
or
from
all
that
this
in
pattern
reects
competition
information
and
differently
different
mental
cooperation:
depending
on
we
what
others.
bias—stereotypes,
types
perceptions
on
stereotypes—these
discrimination
3
cooperation
to
are
closely
linked
to
other
topics
as:
”Unit
an
game
another
be
–
people
UNDERSTANDING
and
of
start
points
competition
towards
discrimination
–
levels
of
social
prejudice
and
discrimination
bias
membership
negative
ESSENTIAL
such
to
collaboration
discrimination
Prejudice
and
Importantly
,
lead
introduced.
competition
conducted
Stereotypes—generalized
Prejudice—a
not
increased
was
higher
caused
–
we
Prejudice
did
dose
out-groups.
6.2.2
participants
pre-emptively
non-cooperation.
increasing
side
were
people
competition
conclude
prefrontal
competing
more
in
fund.
the
taking
to
group
group
cooperation
prisoner’
s
but
public
conict
with
version
collaborating
rewards,
resulted
the
groups.
variables.
modied
when
Researchers
divided
brain
De
to
Conclusion
Decety
and
that
more
of
investment.
evenly
competition
any
contributed
and
group
showed
understanding
Cooperative
✪
not
could
multiplied
RESEARCH
Essential
They
of
contributing
results
anyway
20
MU.
Results
The
sample
16
with
form
(see
Sociocultural
the
cognitive
”3.1.3
basis
of
Stereotypes”
approach
to
prejudice
in
behaviour”)
–
their
of
group
social
identity
(“us”
and
outgroup
theory”
typical
often
of
biased)
individuals
based
membership
theory—categorization
“them”)
triggers
discrimination
in
(and
characteristics
”Unit
3
in-group
(see
“3.1.1
Sociocultural
into
social
favouritism
Social
groups
and
identity
approach
to
behaviour”)
Human
relationships
141
–
competition
and
discrimination
competitive
(see
enhanced
relationship
competition
develop
cooperation—both
are
over
with
scarce
prejudice
“6.2.1
and
when
each
resources
prejudice
the
other;
causes
discrimination
Cooperation
and
and
groups
for
are
may
in
a
example,
groups
against
–
It
to
each
inuence
Levinson,
was
other
prejudice
exposing
from
T
oday
people
social
desirability
.
against
called
–
T
ests
–
One
certain
have
on
reaction
has
been
where
Implicit
recent
due
to
years
the
explicitly
,
called
is
to
to
McGhee,
that
taken
shown
if
a
two
to
even
explicitly
still
be
due
those
experimental
malleable
to
groups
in
positive,
can
groups.
it.
that
Schwartz
person
mental
implicit
implicit
Implicit
This
is
1998).
–
has
them
a
strong
will
prejudice
doesn’t.
prejudice.
They
Implicit
be
may
Obama
On
the
size
of
and,
effect.
are
automatic
the
–
size
one
the
as
a
contact
may
even
not
implicit
displays
that
although
they
may
exists
people
still
be
outside
realize
of
in
do
prejudice
not
This
of
their
against
conscious
they
are
out-group
result,
introduced
Greenwald,
were
Schwartz
is
In
that
particular
,
implicit
exemplars
prejudice
and
for
Plant
example,
(2011)
frequent,
reducing
contradiction
al
(2011)
of
increase
exists
On
predicts
was
See
other
hand,
the
threat
the
out-group
groups
will
become
size
more
prejudice.
in
the
shown
between
threat.
in
the
resolved
it
increase
perceived
as
intergroup
is
an
the
the
that
between
where
perceived
will
prejudice
that
study
that
a
out-group
Savelkoul
of
size
et
Savelkoul
curvilinear
al
and
the
level
(2011)
prejudice
certain
groups,
awareness
This
Since
implicit
a
self-report
is
to
develop
prejudice
prejudice,
measure
an
even
by
denition,
(such
as
instrument
where
a
cannot
be
questionnaire),
that
will
participants
allow
revealed
the
researchers
themselves
do
in
challenge
not
to
see
see
it.
(that
is
by
(IAT
s)
McGhee
and
Trial
4
(1998).
based
on
the
idea
that
if
a
person
has
a
White/Unpleasant
strong
African
automatic
association
reaction
measure
research
extent.
demonstrated,
predicts
Black/Pleasant
these
See
prejudice.
IAT
s
All
contexts.
non-stereotypical
Columb
prejudice.
hypothesis
relationship
prejudice
decreased
prejudiced).
tests
the
an
intergroup
RCT
contact
et
exist
societies.
demonstrate
prejudiced
that
have
developed
association
are
to
decrease
See
and
hand,
increases,
This
shorter
.
racial
the
Out-group
Association
representations,
Implicit
They
legal
to
prejudiced
realizing
measure
use
associate
prejudice
overt
taboo
sometimes
they
is
in
(2010)
prejudice
However
,
is,
developed
idea
explicit
less
may
prejudice
between
time
they
without
approaches
the
association
In
groups
been
the
prejudice
However
,
(Greenwald,
based
It
demonstrate
implicit
of
T
ests
Y
oung
prejudice
in
–
people
social
towards
Implicit
and
demonstrated
implicit
competition”).
decision-making
Cai
time
tests
are
implicit
between
taken
to
two
associate
computer-based.
racial
bias
might
Trial
mental
them
For
will
be
example,
include
American
representations,
the
shorter
.
a
test
following
to
trials:
Participants
are
(Enjoyment,
to
the
left
to
the
right
required
African
category
,
to
classify
American)
such
category
,
as
such
as
the
target
quickly
as
Black/Pleasant
as
words
possible
(by
White/Pleasant
either
pressing
(by
E)
pressing
or
I).
1
The
Black/Unpleasant
White/Pleasant
idea
against
in
trial
is
that
African
4.
They
If
if
a
participant
Americans,
will
also
has
they
take
an
will
less
implicit
think
time
to
racial
less
react
in
in
prejudice
trial
trial
3
1
than
than
Enjoyment
Trial
2
in
trial
2.
it
may
be
you
have
cognitively
“Black/Pleasant”,
Black/Pleasant
so
a
racial
harder
you
prejudice
for
will
you
take
a
to
against
process
longer
black
the
time
to
people,
category
react.
White/Unpleasant
There
is
a
great
variety
of
IAT
s
today
.
For
example,
a
gender-
Enjoyment
science
Trial
female
3
words.
Black/Unpleasant
African
142
Unit
6—Human
White/Pleasant
American
relationships
IAT
requires
participants
photographs
together
to
with
quickly
science
group
and
male
liberal
and
arts
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Implicit
Guilty
by
implicit
racial
bias—Levinson,
Cai
and
Young
(2010)
understanding
prejudice
may
exist
where
explicit
prejudice
does
Results
not.
It
Implicit
racial
prejudice
may
inuence
decision-making
was
found
associations
legal
that
participants
held
strong
and
“Guilty”
implicit
in
between
“Black”
(compared
to
contexts.
between
“White”
and
“Guilty”).
Aim
Interestingly
,
T
o
examine
whether
people
hold
implicit
scores
between
African
Americans
and
criminal
on
also
Participants
undergraduate
Hawaii
eligible
Method
for
and
and
jury
graduate
students
at
the
University
of
feeling
a
completed
thermometers
preferences,
African
for
“Black/White,
Guilty/Not
computer-based
(designed
example
Americans?”)
evidence
of
scene
“How
and
evaluation
an
armed
a
to
guilty”
measures:
evaluate
warm
robbery
task
robbery
.
photographs
warmly
to
implicit
j u ro r s
evaluated
negatively
correlated
participants
with
who
towards
show
an
African
implicit
Americans
“Guilty”
were
bias
against
do
the
explicit
you
feel
evidence
presented
(pieces
After
of
this
they
evidence)
evaluation
saw
and
a
S t ro n g e r
“Black” and “Guilty”
the
way
mock
implicit
w e re
linked
associations
ambiguous
evidence
as
m o re
to
indicative
of
judgments
guilt.
Conclusion
task.
with
series
were
p re d i c t e d
evidence.
IAT
,
racial
towards
participants
associations
IAT
.
Implicit
attitudes
of
explicit
attitudes
(found
time,
implicit
race
and
in
guilt
may
self-report
associations
be
different
measures).
between
race
from
At
and
the
guilt
may
a
inuence
story
likely
These
same
The
IAT
them.
of
Participants
the
thermometer:
duty
.
procedure
designed
on
feeling
feeling
more
between
Researchers
the
guilt.
reported
67
scores
associations
of
legal
decision-making.
crime
primed
Implications
with
a
picture
of
either
a
dark-skinned
or
a
light-skinned
The authors claim that the ndings have large implications in
perpetrator
(skin
colour
was
manipulated
by
software).
terms of compromising the legal principle of presumption of
For
each
piece
of
evidence
participants
then
had
to
decide
innocence: if not proven otherwise, people are assumed to be
whether
it
indicated
that
the
defendant
was
guilty
or
not
innocent. However
, if implicit biases exist in this area, the principle
guilty
.
that is postulated on paper may be compromised in practice.
RESEARCH
Essential
implicit
prejudice
and
the
Obama
exemplars
prejudice
from
towards
effect—Columb
Participants
understanding
Positive
✪
Implicit
social
these
groups
can
were
and
Plant
randomly
(2011)
assigned
into
one
of
three
conditions.
decrease
–
groups.
Negative:
negative
participants
exemplars
in
on
this
the
condition
rst
set
of
were
trials
primed
and
Xs
with
on
the
Background
second
Barack
Obama
was
the
rst
black
person
to
be
elected
of
the
United
Negative
then
negative
exemplars
on
investigate
implicit
if
exposure
anti-black
trials.
Obama:
participants
were
primed
with
States.
Aim
T
o
of
as
–
President
set
to
Obama
can
cause
a
decrease
in
–
prejudice.
the
second
Control:
set
on
of
participants
the
rst
set
of
trials
and
“Obama”
trials.
were
primed
with
Xs
on
both
sets
of
trials.
After
completing
this
procedure,
all
participants
were
given
Method
the
Experiment,
independent
measures
Black/White
implicit
association
test
(IAT).
This
measured
design.
their
implicit
prejudice
(a
anti-black
prejudice.
questionnaire)
was
A
also
measure
of
explicit
administered.
Participants
51
non-black
undergraduate
psychology
students.
Results
Participants
in
signicantly
less
the
Obama
condition
demonstrated
Procedure
Participants
performed
a
task
where
they
had
to
a
string
of
letters
was
a
word
or
a
non-word.
2
sets
of
24
trials.
Before
each
trial
they
with
a
name
or
a
string
of
Xs.
“Primed”
means
name
were
was
either
ashed
negative
on
the
screen
exemplars
of
for
black
55
ms.
The
people,
There
was
participants
no
difference
in
the
between
the
condition
prejudice
and
the
control
condition.
(measured
by
the
questionnaire)
was
not
that
affected
the
condition.
were
Explicit
primed
than
They
Obama
performed
prejudice
decide
negative
whether
implicit
by
this
experimental
manipulation.
names
that
is,
Conclusion
people
who
were
perceived
negatively
by
the
majority
of
Exposure
participants
at
the
time
of
the
study
(such
as
OJ
Simpson),
to
exemplars
the
positive
exemplar
Obama
“undid”
the
harmful
effect
of
negative
or
on
implicit
racial
prejudice.
(Obama).
Positive
Obama)
counter-stereotypic
can
decrease
exemplars
implicit
(such
anti-black
Human
as
Barack
prejudice.
relationships
143
RESEARCH
Essential
the
et
al
(2011)—
out-group
understanding
Anti-immigrant
✪
of
Savelkoul
prejudice
size
and
intergroup
prejudice
Results
is
mediated
by
the
relative
size
out-group.
It
was
found
increases
that
a
people’
s
which
in
turn
At
same
larger
level
out-group
of
induces
perceived
anti-Muslim
in
a
geographical
stress
in
that
region
region,
attitudes.
Background
One
approach
to
explain
anti-Muslim
attitudes
builds
a
realistic
conict
theory
(RCT)
and
suggests
that
the
the
larger
for
resources
between
majority
and
induces
negative
attitudes
and
hostility
contradictory
in
a
result)
geographical
it
was
region
found
increases
that
the
actual
that
people
will
have
friends
and
colleagues
minority
belonging
groups
(a
out-group
likelihood
competition
time
on
towards
to
ethnic
minority
groups,
which
in
turn
reduces
the
perceived
threat
A
that
and
anti-Muslim
attitudes.
out-group.
Another
approach
is
the
intergroup
contact
theory
nding
relationship
suggests
that
intergroup
contact
will
reduce
negative
these
two
out-group
results
size
is
and
the
the
curvilinear
level
threat.
For
relatively
small
out-groups,
of
an
increase
hostility
.
of
These
are
opposing
explanations:
one
of
them
predicts
the
increased
intergroup
contact
(through
out-group
increased
competition
the
suggests
of
bigger
,
over
resources)
will
increase
prejudice;
other
point
intergroup
contact
(through
developing
friendship)
perceived
is
associated
contact
the
stress.
with
effects
direction
of
However
,
counteract
this
as
an
the
increase
in
these
relationship
is
out-group
the
gets
tendencies.
reversed:
At
the
some
bigger
will
the
decrease
size
that
level
that
between
contact
perceived
and
reconciles
which
out-group,
the
more
positive
people’
s
attitude
towards
it.
prejudice.
Conclusion
Aim
Prejudice
T
o
investigate
the
effect
of
the
relative
out-group
size
threat
anti-Muslim
towards
immigrants
may
be
mediated
by
size.
Relatively
small
perceived
on
and
the
relative
out-group
out-
attitudes.
groups
which
cause
leads
members
to
high
of
levels
the
of
majority
to
perceive
anti-immigrant
threat,
prejudice
(in
Method
line
The
researchers
used
unique
data
of
the
percentage
with
RCT).
in
geographical
regions
in
the
Netherlands.
This
with
a
national
threat
(1,375
survey
of
anti-Muslim
participants).
They
attitudes
used
personal
reverse
6.2.3
techniques
to
analyse
Origins
of
this
SNOITINIFED
that
benets
interests
of
the
interests
another
of
person
behaviour
is
or
and
intergroup
the
or
“I
of
actor
group.
at
behaviour
the
The
conict
cost
of
outcome
explicit,
win,
you
are
on
a
the
attitudes
other
conict
has
end
a
overt
and,
if
there
such
On
one
towards
tendency
manifestations
group
as
is
overt
to
end
the
spectrum
people
physical
escalate:
by
of
other
negative
supported
may
groups.
However
,
them
it
of
number
serve
them
144
of
the
out-
anti-immigrant
weaker
(in
line
with
the
contact
resolution).
takes
competition
the
form
of
a
escalates
and
becomes
conict
resolution—the
special
process
of
intervention
reducing
overt
strategies
it
attitudes
aggravating
with
Arguably
,
–
the
takes
out-
more
the
mere
“3.1.1
weaker
towards
factors,
over
theory
occur
between
because
closely
tied
individuals
our
personal
together
,
it
and
–
a
fact
Social
may
be
hard
and
to
group
tell
of
of
a
not
aggravate
Staub
being
identity
combination
salience
Although
between
identities
scarce
(RCT)”
resources
in
"6.2.1
(see
“Realistic
Cooperation
and
competition")
(prejudice);
violence.
starts
competition
of
categorized
resource
potentially
model
directly
already
stress
and
competitive
of
group
causing
existing
into
social
groups
(see
theory”)
perceived
(see
“The
conict”).
conict,
negative
the
group
some
group
factors
can
dynamics.
also
See
(1999)
apart.
Origins
may
become
through
conict
there
Conict
A
to
conict
instrumental
Conict
are
members
of
forms.
identities
the
eventually
UNDERSTANDING
continuum.
negative
and
lose”
–
is
with
Conict—when
the
Conict
Conict
contacts
tendency
,
resolution
conict
ESSENTIAL
this
starts
Conict
competitive
increases,
data.
conict
Competition—interpersonal
size
advanced
hypothesis
statistical
out-group
and
prejudice
perceived
the
was
group
coupled
as
of
inevitable
Muslims
However
,
Contact
conict
of
theories
as
origins
have
of
pointed
conict.
The
to
different
most
are:
Unit
6—Human
relationships
factors
prominent
that
among
groups
resolution
theory
reduces
conditions
are
(Allport
1954)
intergroup
met.
See
posits
conict
Allport
that
contact
provided
(1954)
between
several
A
meta-analysis
additional
of
supported
aspects,
intergroup
Pettigrew
for
contact
and
this
theory
example,
the
generalize
Tropp
and
fact
across
highlighted
that
Members
effects
situations.
to
See
groups
(2006)
effects
conict
of
are
contact
between
asymmetric
and
groups
depend
on
on
the
group
reduction
the
respond
(expressing
Saxe
The
of
dominant
perspective-taking,
more
groups
while
positively
themselves
and
respond
members
to
of
more
the
positively
non-dominant
perspective-giving
being
heard).
See
Bruneau
and
(2012)
of
membership.
THEORY
Origins
of
Essential
✪
A
that
may
social
of
serve
an
theories
as
resources
origins
(see
categorization
combination
of
symbolic
understanding
number
scarce
a
conict
of
out-group
have
of
conict:
“realistic
(see
“The
to
Social
stress
different
competition
conict
“3.1.1
resource
(see
pointed
and
theory
–
model
of
of
groups
competitors
salience
power
or
resources
prestige.
are
not
Resource
available
to
stress
all
is
the
groups
quantities.
salience
some
as
that
sufcient
The
theory”);
perceived
instrumental
in
over
(RCT)”);
identity
the
such
perception
factors
a
are
than
potentially
competitive
more
to
likely
be
out-group—
perceived
as
others.
group
In
turn,
this
perceived
intergroup
competition
produces
the
conict”).
following
Prejudice
conict
–
discrimination
competition
and
–
and
continuum)
the
over
classic
studies”
in
the
fact
as
mere
shown
1979).
in
See
are
scarce
studies
“6.2.1
of
“3.1.1
(the
“weaker”
Sherif
as
(see
Social
approach
theory
in
“Robber’s
–
the
It
produces
RCT
that
Cave
available
into
social
–
groups,
in
It
“Unit
using
o
3
instrumental
model
of
group
conict
(Esses
et
is
a
development
of
the
RCT
.
This
model
for
in
–
intergroup
Resource
stress
competition
(perceptions
resources)—resources
may
suggests
is
the
result
of
the
availability
both
economic
be
the
group
other
and
of
decreasing
the
increasing
of
the
and
cognitive
zero-sum
obtains,
group.
the
responses—
beliefs,
less
Emotional
the
there
belief
is
responses
may
fear
.
attempts
one
to
remove
following
the
source
of
competition
strategies:
competitiveness
behaviour
,
competitiveness
of
the
out-group
negative
of
the
stereotypes)
in-group
avoiding
contact
with
the
out-group
(for
example,
that
denying
perceived
one
affective
involve
al
o
2001)
more
(discriminatory
behaviour”.
o
The
negative
responses
anxiety
results
by
T
urner
theory”
the
include
competition”).
(T
ajfel,
identity
to
shown
and
categorized
identity
of
cognitive
resources,
of
side
by:
Cooperation
being
social
Sociocultural
caused
responses.
access
to
a
territory).
following.
of
See
valued
Esses
et
al
(2001)
and
Negative
affective
responses
Resource
Salience
of
stress
Perceived
out-group
intergroup
competition
Negative
Attempts
source
Figure
Esses
6.4
et
al
The
instrumental
model
of
group
cognitive
responses
to
of
remove
the
competition
conict
(2001)
Human
relationships
145
THEORY
Aggravating
Essential
also
–
understanding
Although
✪
factors
not
aggravate
directly
already
causing
existing
conict,
negative
some
group
factors
difcult
and
can
–
dynamics.
so
living
frustration
control,
Since
conict
is
a
spectrum,
it
may
start
with
milder
of
the
the
as
prejudice
course
The
of
and
time,
aggravating
discrimination,
taking
factors
more
that
and
violent
can
escalate
and
deepen
overt
and
turn
to
Conict
resolution
Conict
through
Staub
them
(1999),
into
overt
of
resolution
special
is
the
society
(economic,
political,
human
for
a
needs
positive
(feeling
identity
,
of
the
security
need
and
for
with
–
turning
to
the
others)
–
scapegoating
group
for
identity
and
connection
forms.
prejudice
forms
a
with
(claiming
that
some
other
group
is
and
for
life
problems)
conict,
–
according
basic
need
responsible
discrimination
in
forms
connection
such
conditions
on)
adoption
or
creation
of
group
ideologies.
are:
process
intervention
of
reducing
overt
conict
strategies.
Examples
of
factors
that
–
intergroup
–
perspective-taking
promote
conict
resolution
are:
contact
and
perspective-giving.
THEORY
Conict
resolution—the
Essential
✪
hypothesis
–
understanding
Contact
provided
contact
between
several
groups
conditions
reduces
are
intergroup
opportunity
members,
conict
conform
met.
–
Intergroup
most
its
contact
effective
original
has
strategies
form,
stated
intergroup
relations
equal
–
intergroup
status
–
common
–
support
for
that
of
if
considered
reducing
formulated
hypothesis
–
been
by
contact
the
the
groups
cooperation
be
one
intergroup
Allport
in
between
following
to
groups
within
the
(cooperative
the
will
are
contact
Later
the
authorities,
the
theory
introduced
context
was
RESEARCH
✪
A
of
or
In
contact
improve
First
US
situation
white
to
supportive
and
Gaertner
,
two
(intergroup
for
this
Second
were
had
It
and
supports
effects
T
ropp
research
500
do
not
came
from
War
.
segregated
troops
observed
positive
later
racial
the
experiences
Although
in
the
were
that
US
black
army
combined
soldiers
of
and
during
due
from
these
attitudes.
additional
Kawakami
and
of
contact
contact
(2006)
conducted
studies
that
tested
context
may
intergroup
be
especially
to
Allport’
s
contact
suitable
programmes
for
specially
because
factors
were
Tropp
(2006)—
and
than
contact
highlights
intergroup
a
create
anywhere
conditions
else
(Al
of
optimal
Ramiah,
contact
Hewstone
in
it
a
is
easier
school
2013).
2003):
theory
on
school
attitudes.
hypothesis
between
condom
between
passive
cancer
(Al
Effects
of
use
and
smoking
Ramiah,
sexually
and
Hewstone
intergroup
contact
the
transmitted
incidence
of
HIV
,
and
lung
2013).
generalize
across
situations.
meta-analytic
the
contact
example,
contact
with
out-group
members
at
work
is
hypothesis
with
reduced
prejudice
towards
members
of
studies).
–
Intergroup
shown
At
the
members
norms).
Results
–
between
the
friendships.
World
combat
designed
the
–
theory
usually
was
more
associated
(over
when
expectations
intergroup
the
sometimes
necessity
.
For
of
stereotypic
of
acquaintance
cases
contact
–
review
in
units
war
,
troops
understanding
additional
Pettigrew
evidence
soldiers
the
met:
interdependence)
custom
Pettigrew
meta-analysis
several
law
rened
(Dovidio,
Essential
in
goals
of
in
to
development
The
occurs
personal
the
conict.
1954,
conditions
of
for
especially
the
to
contact
produce
same
time,
that
met
Allport’
s
signicantly
these
four
reduced
conditions
are
conditions
intergroup
not
was
bias.
same
Contact
out-group
with
associated
one
with
out-groups
(for
in
one’
s
neighbourhood.
out-group
reduced
(for
example,
prejudice
example,
towards
homosexuals,
blacks)
is
secondary
immigrants).
necessary
Note
for
the
reduction
of
intergroup
conict:
a
small
result
is
Almost
produced
–
They
even
reported
contact
and
when
a
they
are
signicant
prejudice:
r
=
not
146
Unit
of
this
size
6—Human
is
negative
–0.22,
the
studies
p
correlation
<
0.0001.
measures
of
comparable
to
relationships
the
attitude
in
this
However
,
many
change
area
are
rather
based
than
on
self-report
behavioural
criteria.
between
studies
validate
these
self-reports
A
ratings
correlation
all
met.
relationship
from
participants’
close
friends.
with
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Members
Bruneau
in
Saxe
(2012)—perspective-taking
through
understanding
of
the
non-dominant
results
and
a
dominant
group,
positive
group,
benet
change
unlike
from
in
the
members
of
the
perspective-taking
attitude
towards
(it
the
the
minutes.
group
and
text
The
perspective-giving
chat
window.
interaction
confederate
who
Interaction
partner
was
was
acting
a
lasted
member
according
20–30
of
to
a
an
out-
standard
script.
out-group).
Both
Members
of
the
non-dominant
group,
unlike
a
of
the
dominant
group,
benet
from
before
and
after
the
interaction,
participants
lled
out
members
questionnaire
measuring
their
attitudes
towards
the
out-
perspective-giving
group.
(expressing
oneself
and
being
heard).
Results
Aim
Members
T
o
examine
based
the
conditions
intervention
could
under
which
improve
a
brief
intergroup
white
33
in
both
and
76
Mexican
immigrants,
mean
age
towards
much
to
groups.
and
Participants
senders
about
a
group
and
role
of
own
then
the
role
of
to
faced
by
short
essay
was
to
summary
send
translated.
this
it
back
the
to
Participants
of
to
the
thought
they
to
their
using
essay
This
write
ethnic
responder
.
essay
sender
.
groups:
was
from
the
translated
the
two
sender
people
translate
of
one
the
problem
a
and
assigned
The
send
responder
write
words
again
randomly
responders.
difcult
T
ranslate,
of
beneted
participants
more
showed
a
from
positive
in
attitude
of
from
the
non-dominant
perspective-taking,
perspective-giving
to
the
a
more
(63%
positive
of
out-group).
group
but
did
not
benet
responded
participants
positively
changed
their
one).
procedure
were
and
groups
change
attitude
Method
dominant
(79%
Members
Americans
the
perspective-taking
attitudes.
Participants
47
of
dialogue-
in
The
Google
their
message
were
was
Conclusion
Effects
of
conict
contact
are
members
to
between
asymmetric
of
the
dominant
perspective-taking,
groups
respond
(expressing
more
groups
and
groups
while
and
reduction
group
respond
to
being
the
on
members
positively
themselves
on
depend
of
more
the
of
membership:
positively
non-dominant
perspective-giving
heard).
assessing
Notes
the
effectiveness
For
the
of
the
online
translation
tool.
a
or
In
responders,
describing
difculty
challenge
a
follow-up
with
by
of
the
out-group
perspective-taking.
the
members
For
the
in
their
own
words
describing
their
two
then
reading
its
restatement
in
someone
else’
s
perspective-giving.
Importantly
,
they
experience
Attitudes
by
the
The
towards
of
were
Audio
conducted
was
over
disabled;
a
live
video
participants
The
The
the
bystander
responsibility
effect
effect
witnesses
victim
because
situation.
characterizes
a
critical
other
a
situation
situation
people
are
yet
also
where
the
were
that
Latané
and
of
and
Paradoxically
,
less
the
likely
the
victim
unresponsive
Darley
formulated
They
study
were
changes
transient.
returned
to
One
their
Bystander
witness
help
in
assessed
both
intervention.
and
Israeli.
replicated.
attitudes
week
after
to
the
original
However
,
towards
the
it
out-
the
intervention
the
state.
effect—the
an
phenomenon
emergency
victim
if
other
situation
onlookers
does
not
help
witnessing
Assuming
personal
responsibility
4.
Choosing
a
help
is
where
less
are
a
likely
to
present
5.
Implementing
way
more
people
may
be
to
witness
get
suggested
(1970)
theory
of
a
ve-step
their
unresponsive
cognitive
model
this
ndings
of
bystander
bystander
of
Noticing
the
behaviour
Diffusion
are
not
(the
2.
Interpreting
be
event
the
event
as
an
emergency
mechanisms
effect
help).
are
of
the
refers
The
as
to
the
of
bystanderism
observed
to
when
observed,
somebody
psychological
behaviour
follows
(Latané
mechanisms
and
responsibility—the
only
pressure
Especially
1.
decision.
help.
behaviour
.
intervention.
the
the
behaviour
summarized
a
to
the
(absence
Theory
the
Palestinian
3.
The
situation,
were
previous
Psychological
same
were
after
UNDERSTANDING
bystander
someone
out-group
week
interface
Bystanderism
ESSENTIAL
the
shown
SNOITINIFED
Social
6.3.1
the
one
communicated
attitudes
6.3
and
participants
also
group
(Skype).
implemented
responder
.
was
Interactions
was
“being
Results
heard”
procedure
words
–
is
similar
problem
immediately
and
a
modications.
is
–
senders,
study
,
faced
one
is
responsible
intervene
is
not
other
is
may
already
on
Human
to
that
you
you).
cannot
themselves
action
cause
intervening
behaviours
convince
taking
for
focused
onlookers'
that
1970).
perception
who
people
else
Darley
that
intervene.
relationships
147
Evaluation
by
others
reluctant
to
Pluralistic
the
apprehension—the
when
acting
publicly;
fear
this
of
being
makes
judged
people
more
intervene.
of
support
Diffusion
responsibility
study
ignorance—this
reactions
Empirical
others
is
when
the
tendency
dening
an
to
rely
on
an
ambiguous
of
where
emergency
witnesses
situation.
was
not
to
ignorance
is
the
key
mechanism
of
bystanderism
2
of
the
cognitive
model;
evaluation
apprehension
of
responsibility
are
the
key
mechanisms
at
step
a
smoke-lled
passive
others
participant
emergency
.
Darley
and
Essential
understanding
✪
The
that
for
intervening
perception
you
reduces
are
the
Latané
not
the
likelihood
(1968)—diffusion
only
of
one
responsible
helping
believed
See
was
more
that
(although
Darley
an
intercom
to
report
there
the
and
in
time
were
Latané
demonstrated
other
emergency
in
a
situation
1968
room.
It
was
shown
research
that
the
study
presence
dramatically
reduces
the
probability
that
3.
the
RESEARCH
they
situation
ignorance
demonstrated
much
and
of
diffusion
was
took
at
with
step
when
the
ambiguous).
Pluralistic
Pluralistic
participants
(diffusion
of
will
See
interpret
Latané
responsibility
an
and
(the
ambiguous
Darley
participant,
victim
and
one
–
participant,
victim
and
four
as
an
1968
intercom
–
situation
study)
confederate
confederates.
of
The
dependent
variable
was
the
time
from
the
start
of
the
responsibility).
seizure
If
until
the
participants
participant
did
not
leave
left
the
cubicle
the
cubicle
to
look
within
six
for
help.
minutes,
Aim
the
T
o
investigate
the
prediction—the
more
bystanders
experiment
emergency
,
intervene
and
the
less
provide
likely
any
one
bystander
is
terminated.
After
being
debriefed
the
witness
participants
an
was
also
lled
out
a
series
of
questionnaires.
to
help.
Results
–
Participants
were
visibly
stressed
by
the
situation;
many
Participants
of
59
female
and
13
male
students
in
introductory
participated
in
the
experiment
as
part
had
trembling
hands
and
sweating
palms.
psychology
–
courses
them
of
a
The
perceived
number
of
bystanders
had
a
major
effect
class
on
the
likelihood
of
reporting
the
emergency
.
requirement.
–
Method
–
Each
and
Response
groups
procedure
participant
was
taken
to
an
individual
room
with
system
participants.
that
The
enabled
individuals
the
were
person
told
to
that
talk
they
to
to
take
part
in
a
discussion
of
personal
many
groups
was
also
faster
than
in
bystanders.
size
Percentage
Time
responding
respond
it
took
85
52
seconds
62
93
seconds
31
166
to
other
were
Participant
going
smaller
an
Group
intercom
in
with
and
problems
victim
associated
with
college
life.
They
were
also
told
that
Participant,
the
discussion
was
held
over
the
intercom
to
1
anonymity
of
all
participants
and
avoid
victim,
preserve
confederate
embarrassment.
Participant,
–
Participants
had
to
talk
in
turn.
In
round
1
they
had
4
present
their
the
in
problems
turn
others
was
to
the
had
expected
group.
said.
Finally
to
In
round
comment
round
3
was
on
2
seconds
confederates
each
T
able
person
victim,
to
6.1
Darley
and
Latané
(1968)
what
meant
for
a
Conclusion
free
discussion.
participant’
s
–
In
reality
all
While
someone
microphone
the
other
was
voices
else
was
speaking,
the
Analysing
participants’
responses
during
in
the
discussion
were
and
the
participant
actually
heard
One
of
these
was
the
victim
of
a
emergency
The
future
difcult
to
admitted
to
spoke
adjust
to
with
the
rst,
college
saying
life
embarrassment
especially
participants
in
the
experiment
Darley
and
and
Latané
that
they
participants
were
in
a
state
did
of
not
decide
conict
and
not
to
could
help.
not
to
decide
do.
situation.
victim
seizures,
last
during
session,
staged
what
–
debrieng
recorded
Rather
,
messages.
the
preconcluded
recorded
behaviour
off.
then
spoke
sequence.
victim’
s
turn
to
serious
nervous
when
As
speak
and
quiet).
the
round
made
that
big
he
2
choking
was
the
began
victim
to
he
city
.
stress.
with
the
similar
that
a
under
turn,
again,
seizure
incoherently
in
in
found
He
real
and
other
it
was
(asked
then
may
the
be
one
explained
hand,
embarrassment
participant
underwent
sounds,
On
prone
The
epilepsy
This
it
also
the
the
to
avoid
more
help
of
the
On
shame
participants
diffusion
the
present,
was
or
other
associated
the
of
were
overreacting
experiment.
responsibility
a
for
of
by
participants
responsibility
.
trying
hand,
with
they
not
latter
psychologically
to
avoid
destroying
the
were
helping.
was
trying
With
weaker
“distributed”
the
anonymity
because
among
all
of
them.
turned
Limitation
As
all
other
microphones
were
off,
it
was
Participants
impossible
for
the
participant
to
know
how
the
not
were
reacting
to
this
emergency
see
each
independent
variable
was
the
number
of
that
the
participant
believed
were
In
present
in
other
,
real-life
so
(that
is,
the
number
of
voices
they
heard
in
148
other
may
researchers
participant
Unit
alone
with
6—Human
the
victim
a
and
somewhat
could
articial
(no
confederates)
relationships
emergencies
bystanders
can
mechanisms
apart
diffusion
also
contribute
conducted
round):
lled
–
intercom
is
from
often
see
of
to
bystanderism.
This
is
the
why
rst
an
This
the
responsibility
discussion
over
reactions.
other
each
people
interacting
other’
s
situation.
situation.
The
were
others
room
study
.
other
studies
such
as
the
smoke-
RESEARCH
Essential
Latané
and
Darley
(1968)—pluralistic
ignorance
the
understanding
smoke
within
participants
Seeing
✪
situation
other
people
decreases
the
remain
passive
likelihood
of
in
an
(smoke-lled
six
were
minutes.
observed
room
study)
Throughout
through
a
the
experiment
one-way
mirror
.
ambiguous
intervening
because
Results
participants
do
not
interpret
the
situation
as
dangerous
–
(pluralistic
In
the
alone
condition
75%
of
participants
reported
the
ignorance).
smoke;
–
In
the
it
took
them
condition
two
with
minutes
two
on
passive
average.
confederates
only
10%
Aim
T
o
investigate
dangerous
if
participants
situation
when
will
report
other
an
reported
the
eyes
waved
The
a
and
remain
to
enter
the
was
seated
–
in
questionnaire.
room
through
a
small
After
a
wall
waiting
some
and
time
room
to
smoke
ll
out
began
–
were
three
groups
of
participants
the
work
smoke
on
In
the
condition
the
group
In
post-experimental
they
vent.
to
of
not
with
the
coughed,
rubbed
their
away
from
their
faces,
but
the
sure
it
the
naive
bystanders,
only
38%
smoke.
interviews
smoke
was
questionnaire.
three
reported
thought
were
There
others
passive.
procedure
participant
preliminary
The
ostensibly
witnesses
continued
Method
smoke.
participants
looked
“strange”
dangerous.
They
reported
and
thought
that
it
that
they
could
be
(independent
steam
or
air-conditioning
vapour
,
smog
or
even
a
“truth
variable)
gas”
–
Some
participants
were
in
the
waiting
room
ltered
into
questionnaire
–
Some
naive
were
in
indifferently
carry
–
on
Some
The
and
with
were
room
participant
to
experiment
pay
variable
SNOITINIFED
at
the
no
confederates
were
acting
instructed
attention
with
was
room
terminated
Altruism—seless
occurs
little
room
Prosocial
that
two
to
the
to
smoke,
just
the
to
if
other
time
report
the
it
real
took
the
participants.
the
smoke.
participant
When
did
these
as
not
make
them
answer
the
with
the
an
ambiguous
reactions
reactions.
dangerous
of
This
and
may
be
other
can
event,
lead
to
therefore
called
a
people
bystander
and
be
interpreting
not
the
intervening.
“pluralistic
is
likely
inuenced
situation
This
ignorance”.
report
behaviour
helping,
benet,
that
or
is,
even
helping
at
some
behaviour
cost,
to
whole.
the
are
as
Prosocial
behaviour—any
behaviour
to
others,
people
ESSENTIAL
at
phenomenon
The
not
faced
look
by
helper
benet
to
Conclusion
to
two
room
honestly
.
as
act
questionnaire.
the
leave
was
with
Confederates
to
the
in
dependent
6.3.2
the
participants.
the
alone.
individual
or
that
is
all
Helping,
examples
obeying
the
sharing,
of
cooperating
prosocial
rules
is
also
and
behaviour;
considered
volunteering
such
behaviour
prosocial
intended
society
on
the
UNDERSTANDING
Evolutionary
claim
puzzle
that
humans
are
capable
of
real
altruism
driven
by
pure
empathy
.
Prosocial
factors,
behaviour
including
may
purely
be
driven
egoistic
by
a
variety
concerns.
of
For
motivating
example,
a
Theories
businessperson
who
runs
a
charity
organization
may
Examples
the
society
as
a
result
of
his
or
her
activities,
but
may
prosocial
motives,
the
altruism
prominent
behaviour
it
is
theory
Similar
behaviour
easy
of
to
occurs
explain
evolution
behaviour
may
(the
also
it
by
idea
be
as
a
result
existing
of
in
of
such
the
kin
selection
theory
egoistic
theories
survival
observed
of
as
ttest).
when
prosocial
behaviour
occurs
at
some
helper
explain
an
its
(altruism),
origins.
evolutionary
puzzle
is
to
altogether
,
altruistic
survival
it
that
predicts
and
by
Darwin
puzzle.
deny
it
the
more
admitted
One
of
existence
asserting
behaviour
becomes
that
actually
all
the
of
that
altruism
purely
to
explain
egoistic
of
However
,
other
psychologists
do
genes
will
related
selection
be
to
are
driven
(rather
likely
the
if
evolutionary
by
than
the
the
desire
to
themselves);
target
helper—see
is
young,
Hamilton
theory”
hypothesis
(Batson
et
al
1981).
to
solve
Empirical
support
–
et
this
Madsen
al
(2007)
provided
support
to
kin
selection
behaviour
theory
by
demonstrating
willing
to
endure
that
participants
are
more
seemingly
motives
not
their
altruism
closely
1964)—this
organisms
presented
to
altruistic
instances
have
challenging
approaches
of
empathy-altruism
pain
when
it
benets
closer
relatives.
behind
They
them.
attempt
cost
–
the
that
(Hamilton
that
maximize
healthy
animals.
theory
suggests
(1964)—”Kin
However
,
to
theories
are:
self-interest.
–
When
of
actually
altruistic
pursue
of
benet
agree.
also
showed
that
this
pattern
repeats
cross-
They
culturally
.
See
Madsen
et
al
(2007)
Human
relationships
149
–
Batson
does
et
not
empathy
the
al
is
victim.
people
(1981)
affect
demonstrated
participants’
induced
This
behave
through
means
that
unselshly
.
that
altruistic
ease
perceived
when
See
of
escape
behaviour
similarity
empathy
Batson
et
is
al
Challenges
when
One
with
it
activated,
is
the
(1981)
of
the
in
to
observed
motives.
but
main
difcult
in
behaviour
The
only
self-report
sensitive
challenges
establish
is
way
was
to
subject
topics
like
in
an
to
eld
driven
do
this
this
of
research
experimental
so
by
may
social
setting
altruistic
be
or
through
desirability
is
that
whether
egoistic
self-report,
bias,
especially
one.
THEORY
Hamilton
Essential
(1964)—kin
Since
their
is
likely
be
to
are
trying
relatives
altruism
theory
understanding
Organisms
✪
selection
justied.
the
to
have
This
target
Predictions
maximize
partially
means
of
the
that
altruistic
survival
same
closer
of
their
genes.
genotype,
relatives
Based
–
are
on
this
relatives
more
often
behaviour
.
than
–
starting
will
than
be
kin
target
non-relatives,
distant
younger
idea,
the
selection
of
theory
altruistic
and
closer
predicts
behaviour
relatives
that:
more
more
often
relatives
kin
are
more
likely
to
be
helped
than
older
kin
Theory
(because
Kin
selection
theory
is
an
extension
of
evolutionary
suggests
that
organisms
may
be
driven
by
the
maximize
survival
potential
of
their
genes
more
likely
to
produce
offspring
be
helped
the
and
on
the
genes)
desire
–
to
are
theory
pass
that
they
(rather
healthy
kin
are
more
likely
to
(for
same
than
reason).
themselves).
we
desire
our
In
other
(although
genetic
Hamilton
words,
we
it
want
is
not
that
our
too),
own
but
survival
the
that
survival
Limitations
of
–
material.
coined
the
term
“kin
selection”
as
an
“natural
selection”
in
Darwin’
s
evolutionary
theory
humans
theory
,
tness”
as
an
addition
to
“direct
Helping
behaviour
✪
Essential
al
(2007)—support
for
are
closer
willing
to
relatives
endure
This
kin
or
understanding
Participants
benets
et
more
pattern
pain
repeats
when
siblings.
a
cross-
wall
Aim
a
investigate
an
the
inuence
experimental
social
desirability
.
theory
in
two
cross-cultural
evolutionary
design,
In
addition,
different
are
explanation
evolved
in
as
cultural
differences).
kin
a
of
selection
avoiding
the
cultures.
differences
humans
of
thus
not
is
there
human
inuence
tested
important
usually
behaviour
species,
on
the
researchers
This
the
should
altruism
of
the
because
compatible
(if
that
identify
from
occurs
be
kin
between
explained
with
behaviour
be
few
or
an
truly
no
between
cannot
They
sitting
and
becomes
asked
in
assumption
to
both
animals
strangers.
by
strangers,
kin
and
selection
these
theory
.
be
kin
(found
explained
both
in
by
the
to
adopt
animals
and
theory
.
selection
position:
it
culturally
.
T
o
cannot
Competition
humans)
Madsen
the
able
tness”.
–
RESEARCH
on
are
and
instances
“indirect
relies
addition
–
to
The
and
calves
hold
participant
translated
from
the
They
had
it
and
for
was
into
a
then
though
5
long
able
to
themselves
–
their
parents
–
their
grandparent,
(r
=
with
as
benet
a
time.
the
for
painful
the
angles.
possible.
15-minute
had
–
to
back
This
against
position
Participants
The
length
position
the
breaks
maintain
(co-efcient
or
right
with
was
recipient,
were
of
time
then
a
person
list.
with
they
chair
,
maintain
material
trials
a
at
painful
as
participant’
s
order
,
asked
on
thighs
increasingly
to
random
were
as
siblings
of
(r
aunt,
the
in
relatedness
=
between.
difcult
r
=
In
a
position
for:
1)
0.5)
uncle,
niece
or
nephew
0.25)
–
their
–
a
cousin
(r
=
0.125)
Method
Experiment,
repeated
measures
local
Every
experiments
the
were
populations:
students
was
see
done
observed
to
if
despite
conducted
in
the
the
the
same
UK
in
and
two
intentionally
South
patterns
cultural
organization
(r
=
0).
design.
Participants
The
charity
of
African
behaviour
differences
in
the
different
Zulu.
will
idea
of
This
effort
variables.
to
the
The
1.50
kinship.
payment
GBP
the
for
for
same
made
did
not
The
every
the
to
live
material
recipient.
be
of
was
recipients
ensure
benet
payment
20
Zulu
that
together
,
(a
value.
the
the
participants
monetary
All
avoid
payment)
for
seconds
participants
to
UK
was
sent
directly
participants
position
consisted
Zulu
and
confounding
was
of
held.
food
participants
was
The
hampers
came
from
Procedure
extremely
Participants
were
asked
to
provide
a
list
of
individuals
of
necessity
.
varied
150
genetic
Unit
relatedness,
6—Human
for
example
parents,
relationships
cousins
poor
rural
communities,
so
food
was
perceived
as
a
Results
–
As
a
Conclusion
general
painful
position
the
amount
increased
relatedness:
participants
this
for
position
their
–
trend,
This
parents
effect
were
themselves
than
of
with
of
the
was
spent
in
co-efcient
more
than
ready
their
grandparents,
kinship
time
and
to
of
maintain
parents,
so
the
more
The
study
role
in
kinship
for
is
altruism,
on.
provides
experimental
moderating
the
but
inuence
altruistic
only
,
the
over
or
even
study
and
evidence
behaviour
.
the
leading,
demonstrates
above
other
that
This
is
factor
that
possible
kinship
not
in
to
plays
say
a
that
determining
kinship
has
an
factors.
transcultural.
THEORY
Empathy-altruism
Batson
et
people
may
al 's
well-being.
person,
can
empathy-altruism
help
If
they
others
will
help
gain
✪
that
hypothesis
genuine
empathy
person
it
and
Batson
towards
regardless
even
et
states
concern
al
at
a
of
cost
that
for
The
their
another
what
to
people
is
all
altruism
(1981)—the
(induced
hypothesis
explanations
can
be
of
reduced
is
often
altruism
to
some
opposed
because
form
of
it
to
denies
selsh
that
interest.
they
themselves.
Elaine
study
–
activated
behave
empathy-altruism
evolutionary
understanding
empathy
similarity),
of
feel
from
RESEARCH
When
out
individuals
potentially
Essential
hypothesis
through
Level
of
empathy—low
manipulated
perceived
through
questionnaire.
unselshly
.
before
the
All
a
versus
high.
values
and
participants
experiment.
lled
Elaine’
s
This
was
interests
out
this
questionnaire
questionnaire
was
Aim
T
o
investigate
(unselsh)
if
empathy
motivation
to
produces
genuinely
prepared
in
dissimilar
to
advance
the
of
×
2
either
very
similar
or
participant’
s
own
responses.
very
Elaine’
s
help.
questionnaire
2
be
altruistic
Method
Experiment,
to
experimental
Elaine
design.
was
“impression
prior
as
either
studies,
then
given
formation”,
similar
Batson
or
et
to
so
the
the
dissimilar
al
(1981)
participant
participant
to
herself.
claim
that
as
part
perceived
Based
on
perceived
Participants
similarity
44
female
introductory
psychology
students;
11
The
per
increases
empathy
towards
a
person.
participants
dependent
variable
was
whether
or
not
the
group.
participant
agreed
to
replace
Elaine
after
the
second
trial.
Procedure
Results
On
arriving
the
arrival
a
at
of
the
the
confederate.
that
one
of
venue
participants
second
It
was
them
subject,
Elaine,
determined
(always
Elaine)
were
who
through
would
told
to
wait
was
The
lowest
was
observed
in
Low
empathy
appeared
task
under
aversive
conditions—electric
intervals.
shocks
was
The
to
job
of
observe
the
other
one
so
(always
the
to
observed
were
Elaine
then
of
to
from
extremely
the
rst
to
CCTV
trial
to
the
volunteer
to
trial
that
not
have
a
separate
(actually
a
room
where
they
recording).
It
nding
shocks
in
the
in
any
fact,
help
her
of
by
under
signicant
easy
even
escape
more
to
help
condition.
motivation
helping
high
to
help
dramatically
empathy–easy
effect
on
the
Elaine
was
the
ten)
they
taking
her
were
given
a
participants
condition
(from
escape
probability
(91%
chose
versus
to
of
help
Elaine
82%).
was
of
Low
(out
the
reduced
Conversely
,
unpleasant.
second
agreed
escape
real
Easy
After
make
escape
Probability
evident
who
Elaine.
taken
through
ease
18%).
helping;
Participants
participants
empathy–easy
at
did
participant)
of
low
lots
64%
random
the
performing
egoistic,
a
proportion
actually
drawing
be
for
escape
taking
Elaine’s
empathy
place
High
18%
91%
64%
82%
empathy
chance
Difcult
place.
T
able
escape
6.2
Variables
T
wo
independent
variables
were
manipulated
in
the
Batson
et
al
(1981)
experiment.
Conclusion
–
Cost
of
escaping
without
helping—easy
escape
versus
The
difcult
escape.
In
the
difcult
escape
motivation
believed
that
if
they
did
not
take
not
they
would
have
to
continue
witnessing
In
the
easy
escape
condition
they
believed
high,
just
get
up
and
walk
behaviour
hence
high
of
empathy
escape
conditions
no
longer
was
affected
we
when
can
the
accept
level
the
of
empathy
empathy-altruism
they
hypothesis
could
in
Ease
the
was
situation.
help
egoistic.
Elaine’
s
participants’
place
to
condition
altruistic,
participants
and
claim
that
genuinely
altruistic
behaviour
in
away
.
humans
is
caused
by
feelings
of
empathic
Human
concern.
relationships
151
6.3.3
Promoting
ESSENTIAL
There
and
should
increase
discover
behaviour
UNDERSTANDING
exist
the
these
enhance
prosocial
factors
factors,
them,
that
likelihood
we
making
of
would
counteract
prosocial
can
probably
society
in
bystanderism
behaviour
.
design
general
If
we
strategies
more
to
prosocial.
behaviour
often
implemented
of
the
these
also
target
with
target
the
system
of
of
helping
helping
Flook
and
non-helping:
they
reduce
many
is
the
and
increase
so-called
countries.
example,
for
This
quickly
and
the
“Good
costs
of
non-helping.
law
has
Samaritan
been
reporting
shown
cases
of
law”
et
to
be
heroin
al
(2015)
kindness
Parker
effective,
overdose.
Hutcherson,
a
target
teaching
RESEARCH
Good
an
emergency.
for
the
psychological
people
The
laws
Such
for
may
enhance
brief
Leiberg,
skills
variables.
associated
with
Samaritan
trying
and
Parker
session
the
to
person
laws
have
people
been
heroin
who
shown
help
to
be
others
in
effective,
overdose.
In
the
be
of
a
Zurich
USA
and
Gross
positivity
and
et
al
makes
(2015)
demonstrated
meditation
toward
Gross
Singer
strangers.
See
(2008)
(2011)
Game
training
has
a
toward
in
a
specially
demonstrated
signicant
strangers
and
Singer
Samaritan
accidental
cause
(Nguyen,
more
laws
are
designed
to
protect
people
help
others
in
an
emergency
situation
that
that
effect
a
on
in
a
novel
situation.
(2011)
law
drug
of
Parker
and
overdose
death,
more
even
2018).
states
In
has
been
exceeding
response
are
to
accepting
reported
motor
this
to
vehicle
growing
Good
of
failure.
If
they
are
not
provide
gets
hurt
behaviour
as
a
may
result
have
of
their
negative
but
successful,
trying
legal
to
them
personally
,
counteract
this.
and
In
Good
some
Samaritan
countries
the
punishment
experience
is
for
not
bystanders
provide
Examples
be
dangerous
if
they
help
of
seen
to
Good
in
the
for
laws
witness
the
help,
Australia,
bills
that
Argentina
Flook
Samaritan
assess
of
the
are
even
effective
in
means
an
incident
and
yet
of
they
if
in
et
al
emergency
witness
service.
such
people
cannot
even
be
charged
with
effectiveness
drug
of
adopting
overdose-related
such
deaths,
laws
for
Nguyen
the
and
analysed
New
Y
ork
hospital
and
New
admissions
Jersey)
data
before
(across
and
after
270
the
the
was
adopted.
admissions
for
have
and
been
They
found
but
heroin-related
an
overall
accidental
increase
in
overdose
hospital
cases,
not
for
non-heroin
support
for
the
of
prosocial
effectiveness
of
overdoses.
Good
This
Samaritan
provided
laws
in
Canada.
heroin-related
kindness
Method
curriculum
fostering
mindfulness-based
accidental
endorsed
(2015)—mindfulness-based
kindness
terms
promoting
an
do
for
and
prosocial
kindness
behaviour
as
pre-school
this
curriculum
procedure
training
attentional
or
involves
object,
emotions.
sustained
particular
appropriate
mental
children.
admissions.
enhancing
be
it
awareness
breath,
external
of
a
stimuli,
attitudes.
curriculum
in
hospital
pre-school
improved
of
call
drugs.
(2018)
thoughts
a
and
designed
Aim
investigate
overdose
requires
particular
is
who
their
understanding
mindfulness-based
children
an
law
Mindfulness
A
those
if
increasing
Essential
to
victim.
Samaritan
RESEARCH
arrest
consequences
law
themselves
from
may
or
law
situation
immunity
who
hospitals
a
(2008)
Klimecki
Good
threat,
Parker
T
o
children
Flook
loving-kindness
Prosocial
behaviour
primary
reduction
✪
and
of
general
Klimecki
deaths
T
o
can
See
Effectiveness
protect
reporting
possibility
prosocial
not
prosocial.
Seppala
Leiberg,
possession
to
more
compassion
(2018)—effectiveness
Under
for
mindfulness-
They
or
the
a
law
Good
face
that
pre-school
prosocial
laws
are
for
variables
Nguyen
Samaritan
example,
they
training).
for
understanding:
✪
However
,
compassion
are
is
See
See
Essential
curriculum.)
demonstrated
Seppala
that
prosocial
at
example
(2018)
psychological
strategies
aimed
(An
them
strategies
in
brief
are
make
Such
children.
example,
curriculum
behaviour
designed
Other
(for
that
others.
An
accepted
–
T
argeting
young
kindness
adults
Hutcherson,
Nguyen
with
ways
of
the
–
example
in
needs
incentives
their
costs
people
the
incentives
strategies
based
associated
to
mindfulness-based
–
Some
training
responsive
may
T
argeting
or
more
Children
training
practices
image
were
of
a
Such
training
attention
young
to
and
usually
emotion
children
extend
care
results
engaged
and
in
regulation.
well
in
In
age-
wishes
to
a
person.
randomly
assigned
to
either
a
mindfulness-
Participants
based
68
pre-school
Unit
curriculum
(KC)
or
a
wait-list
control
group.
children.
The
152
kindness
6—Human
relationships
KC
was
a
12-week
intervention
(two
30-minute
lessons
a
week)
using
reinforce
literature,
concepts
music
related
to
and
movement
kindness
and
to
teach
and
Results
compassion.
Children
for
A
variety
of
variables
were
measured
both
before
and
in
the
control
themselves
over
group
time
kept
signicantly
compared
to
children
more
from
stickers
the
KC
after
group.
the
intervention.
sharing
task
in
They
which
included
a
child
a
special
was
given
experimental
an
envelope
labelled
Conclusion
“me”,
an
envelope
with
a
picture
of
another
child
and
10
Researchers
stickers.
The
other
child
was
either
a
most
liked
peer
based
the
participant's
class,
a
least
liked
peer
from
their
prosocial
unfamiliar
child
or
a
child
who
the
participant
skills
that
implementing
training
curriculum
a
in
mindfulness-
real-life
settings
is
class,
benecial
an
concluded
from
was
in
terms
of
fostering
values
of
helping,
sharing
and
told
compassion.
was
sick.
stickers
they
Children
as
they
would
were
would
like
to
other
like
the
RESEARCH
Essential
A
✪
brief
that
to
they
could
themselves
keep
and
give
as
many
as
many
as
person.
Hutcherson,
Seppala
and
Gross
(2008)—loving-kindness
Explicit
understanding
session
of
enhance
general
kindness
meditation
individuals
told
loving-kindness
positivity
direct
is
a
toward
strangers.
meditative
compassion
and
meditation
practice
wishes
scale.
may
indicating
Loving-
in
for
toward
which
well-being
or
imagined
this,
how
the
responses
were
participants
connected,
assessed
rated
similar
each
and
by
a
7-point
photograph
positive
they
felt
subject.
to
T
o
real
evaluative
Using
meditation
assess
implicit
responses
to
each
picture,
a
procedure
was
others.
used
where
order
,
each
followed
face
by
a
was
presented
positive
word
18
(such
times
as
in
random
brilliant
or
loyal)
Aim
on
T
o
investigate
if
it
is
possible
to
self-generate
feelings
connection
and
positivity
toward
volunteers
who
rarely
or
never
and
followed
by
a
negative
word
(such
as
cruel
immoral)
on
the
other
9
trials.
Participants
had
to
quickly
others.
Participants
93
trials;
of
or
social
9
meditated
in
their
daily
life.
decide
whether
implicit
positive
more
quickly
the
word
response
to
positive
was
positive
shows
words
itself
after
or
as
negative.
a
the
bias
to
An
respond
presentation
of
the
photograph.
Procedure
Participants
went
the
through
other
Both
were
one
before
a
7-minute
went
and
participants’
randomly
this
and
into
guided
through
after
explicit
split
session
groups:
loving-kindness
neutral
implicit
two
imagery
group
meditation;
induction.
researchers
evaluative
one
measured
responses
to
Results
Loving-kindness
feelings
of
on
explicit
both
mediation
social
was
connection
and
implicit
effective
and
in
positivity
increasing
toward
strangers
levels.
six
Conclusion
photographs:
Researchers
–
a
picture
of
technique
–
a
close
three
–
a
may
help
that
even
decrease
this
social
brief
and
isolation.
easy
However
,
it
other
remains
–
concluded
themselves
neutral
to
be
demonstrated
that
these
effects
are
not
only
strangers
short-term.
non-social
object
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
A
brief
prosocial
(for
example,
Leiberg,
a
lamp).
Klimecki
and
Singer
(2011)—compassion
understanding
compassion
behaviour
training
toward
training
Procedure
can
signicantly
strangers
in
a
novel
affect
Prosocial
situation.
for
In
the
this
behaviour
purposes
of
was
the
assessed
study:
computer-based
with
the
a
novel
Zurich
procedure
game
Prosocial
participants
developed
Game.
guided
their
Aim
T
o
investigate
behaviour
in
the
effects
adults
(aged
of
compassion
18–35
training
on
character
with
maze.
the
mouse
clicks
as
fast
as
possible
through
a
prosocial
At
end
of
the
maze
there
was
treasure
which
was
years).
converted
into
real
money
.
Participants
69
female
through
volunteers
from
the
University
of
Zurich
They
could
from
a
also
see
one
other
player
(ostensibly
a
person
recruited
different
university
,
but
actually
a
pre-programmed
advertisement.
algorithm)
through
another
screen.
Importantly
,
progress
the
mazes
way
theoretically
it
two
maze
did
not
on
the
same
intersect
in
any
Method
Experiment,
mixed
so
was
possible
to
complete
the
game
design.
while
absolutely
ignoring
the
other
player
.
Human
relationships
153
At
some
points
appeared
that
participant
use
to
during
the
game,
blocked
the
participants’
had
unlock
a
number
the
of
red
red
and
and
blue
paths.
blue
keys
gates
Participants
Each
underwent
that
she
could
gates.
memory
Game
ve
When
the
co-player
ran
out
of
keys,
participants
could
own
key
to
open
the
gate
for
the
co-player
.
They
training.
was
days
how
many
doors
of
each
colour
were
left,
and
after
keys
The
of
each
colour
they
had
as
well
as
how
each
twice,
into
of
the
once
two
while
groups
before
groups:
the
other
the
the
one
received
Zurich
training
Prosocial
and
again
it.
compassion
to
learn
group
a
attended
Buddhist
a
one-day
meditation
training
technique
called
how
many
The
training
involved
sitting
in
an
upright
position
the
and
co-player
split
training
could
Metta.
many
In
played
session
see
randomly
use
–
their
were
compassion
concentrating
on
warm
and
positive
feelings
had.
toward
oneself,
ultimately
,
the
–
all
person
be
The
memory
of
a
loci.
person,
beings.
silently
a
neutral
Participants
repeating
person
had
phrases
to
like,
and,
imagine
“May
happy”.
training
duration
This
(words)
to
be
associations
way
group
where
involved
well-known
this
beloved
human
while
you
similar
a
route
a
in
they
series
memorized
of
Zurich)
memorized.
between
went
were
the
the
through
taught
locations
and
a
locations
session
of
example,
items
created
and
the
of
method
(for
series
Participants
a
the
mental
words
and
in
sequences.
Results
While
there
observed
training
Figure
6.5
Screenshot
from
the
Zurich
Prosocial
in
in
the
Klimecki
and
Singer
no
change
Zurich
in
the
Prosocial
memory
training
frequency
Game
from
group,
of
helping
pre-
to
compassion
post-
training
Game
signicantly
Leiberg,
was
the
increased
frequency
of
helping.
(2011)
Conclusion
The
researchers
has
a
that
in
a
the
Unit
6—Human
relationships
effect
compassion
novel
task
training).
longer)
154
concluded
signicant
It
(a
on
training
task
training
to
sessions
a
resulted
that
remains
that
brief
prosocial
was
be
also
compassion
behaviour
.
in
transfer
unrelated
observed
show
in
if
to
of
also
noted
behaviour
the
effects
everyday
training
They
contents
of
life
such
of
(or
behaviour
.
7
D E V E L O P M E N TA L
PSYCHOLOGY
T
opics
7.1
7.2
Developing
as
7.1.1
Brain
development
7.1.2
Cognitive
7.1.3
Development
Developing
an
a
learner
of
empathy
7.2.2
Attachment
identity
and
social
Developing
Brain
SNOITINIFED
between
correct
of
mind
7.3.2
Childhood
7.3.3
Effects
as
a
of
the
network
of
One
of
the
factors
is
the
the
neurons
of
newly
formed
neurons
to
that
production
study
of
new
nervous
infer
cognitive
of
although
between
changes
development
this
inference
Empirical
development
biological
structure-function
functional
“Structure-function
process
broken
of
down
coincide
and
in
brain
comes
and
cognitive
relationships.
time,
we
to
may
never
development
with
Werker
If
limitations.
are
See
into
four
and
brain
development
stages:
pruning.
can
neurogenesis,
See
“Structural
be
are
et
al
been
probably
See
due
and
research
of
of
the
post-mortem
studies
features
as
such
the
imaging
brain
(1999)
that
size
could
of
the
brain
only
of
PET
at
With
more
brain
scans
in
the
brain
to
showed
relationships
conned
some
metabolism
looked
(the
pieces
very
the
the
that
is
in
language.
linguistic
infants
Hindi
This
have
even
ability
experience
and
if
an
ability
they
is
lost
had
later
,
pruning.
of
to
develops
various
becoming
in
at
function)
frontal
that
it
conclusions
the
is
necessary
about
developing
brain.
In
“categorization
based
on
and
lobes
how
(the
it
depends
structure).
to
structure-
on
They
their
linguistic
the
possibilities
investigate
of
during
the
evidence,
parts
the
more
complex.
studies
with
both
combined
adults
to
claim
that
categorization
based
on
and
linguistic
gradually
See
Kolb
rst
develops
and
with
Fantie
the
development
of
frontal
(1989)
opened
how
between
of
from
of
Limitations
development”.
correspondence
in
showed
crude
invention
in
of
developmental
developmental
neuroscience
neuroscience
has
some
inherent
glucose
year
of
most
notably
the
ability/strategy
controversy
,
the
life.
controversy
,
the
correlational
nature
increasing
brain
research
and
the
fact
that
localization
of
function
may
and
change
behaviour
and
to
of
glucose
of
that
phonemes
reach
maturation/learning
Results
correspondence
brain
structure-function
this
(1989)
data
limitations,
metabolism
the
(1981)
they
was
look
brain.
many
studies
used
lack
al
research
Research
Chugani
of
development
developing
technology
,
“Empirical
to
et
to
function
in
lobes.
See
and
functions
demonstrated
migration,
features
up.
connections
relationships—the
between
Fantie
features”
studies
(1981)
exposed
Werker
children,
brain
unnecessary
maturation
of
changes
ve
rst,
resilience
development
used
cognitive
studies
maturation
At
of
of
rarely
biological
discriminate
triangulate
brain”.
Empirical
and
on
relationships”.
structural
differentiation
the
development
relationships
while
Kolb
The
social
cells
changes
human
interaction
study
and
that
and
play
trauma
poverty
Structure-function
between
functional
to
structural
related,
and
UNDERSTANDING
and
ways
considering
of
Pruning—elimination
location
Neurogenesis—the
ESSENTIAL
peers
learner
development
Structural
of
roles
neurons
Migration—transportation
their
theory
cognitive
Role
development
Differentiation—development
connections
and
on
7.3.1
identity
Gender
7.1.1
Inuences
development
7.2.1
7.1
7.3
over
time.
See
“Limitations
of
developmental
See
neuroscience”.
Chugani
(1999)
Structure-function
Biological,
cognitive
understanding
the
–
process
Biological
the
–
of
brain
relationships
and
sociocultural
behaviour
provide
psychological
approaches
approaches
three
different
to
One
angles
development.
focus
on
the
structural
approaches
is
changes
in
functions
focus
on
the
development
Sociocultural
ways
of
at
on
these
variables
structural
them
changes
with
the
in
their
relationships.
in
the
brain
interaction
This
refers
longitudinally
corresponding
changes
in
of
structural
and
functional
changes
coincide
in
time,
this
can
(function).
approaches
the
study
functioning.
focus
on
taken
as
evidence
process
of
that
brain
development
and
cognitive
environmental
development
inuences
to
structure-function
comparing
cognitive
be
–
the
study
looking
and
If
cognitive
of
the
to
(structure).
Cognitive
on
are
related.
development.
Developmental
psychology
155
Structural
The
process
into
four
changes
of
brain
in
the
brain
development
has
been
broken
down
stages:
these
their
1.
neurogenesis
2.
migration
(production
of
new
nervous
structures
correct
as
neurons
to
their
correct
differentiation
(development
of
the
network
connections
between
(elimination
“crawl”
to
starts
rapidly
until
shortly
the
after
age
of
conception
two,
and
reaching
synapses
per
second
at
some
point.
the
This
is
rate
of
followed
neurons)
by
pruning
they
of
40,000
4.
which
location
continues
3.
along
outside.
cells)
Differentiation
of
pathways
positions
of
connections
and
even
a
plateau
and
then
rapid
reduction
in
the
number
of
neurons
synapses.
themselves).
By
Neurogenesis
birth).
is
Neurons
normal
nished
are
process
of
in
the
period
overproduced
cell
to
of
gestation
account
for
the
end
Neurons
starts
travel
innermost
neurons
the
are
Empirical
Initially
obvious
into
differences
as
✪
There
100,000
synapses
year
to
bres
the
brain
that
brain
a
size
were
structure
of
the
Chugani
correspondence
of
of
the
conception.
connect
layers.
and
the
New
they
brain
have
brain
more
of
a
secondary
was
conned
looking
at
depending
the
on
to
Brain
most
the
age,
brain.
processes
with
(1999)—brain
the
of
originally
pruning
sometimes.
and
brain
psychological
functions
in
number
is
a
of
This
neuronal
useful
system,
with
development
technology
via
living
in
the
patterns
the
formed
can
means
reach
that
a
few
connections
because
lot
like
major
it
makes
replacing
a
than
the
network
highways.
of
behaviour
in
are
the
between
the
and
the
development
the
rst
year
of
structural
the
and
year
The
(mostly
months:
and
acquire
a
improve
spatial
life.
provided
much
more
research
a
possibility
detail
can
to
study
(including
now
be
brain
conducted
of
life
behaviour
visual
of
newborn
exploration
of
babies
the
is
world
also
very
when
they
awake).
they
of
in
participants.
rst
limited
structural
brain
fMRI),
brainstem.
between
correspondence
of
roads
imaging
also
the
second
pruning
efcient
developing
2–4
the
of
rate
use
Aim
investigate
per
larger
However
,
life.
development
a
adults.
temporal
T
o
50%
the
development
development
brain
the
from
cortical
the
Researchers
in
and
future
understanding
is
development
rst
weeks
glial
inside
brain
RESEARCH
Essential
of
studies.
differences
brain
deep
studies
research
nine
special
the
formed
post-mortem
such
of
around
eliminated,
death.
around
along
parts
are
at
puberty
synapses
children
Migration
of
(before
metabolism
visual
number
on
to
grab
months:
of
tasks
information
eyes
8–12
glucose
primary
a
toy
there
new
as
that
is
an
integration
they
nd
parietal,
at
for
coordinating
increase
in
Children
functions,
requiring
(such
increases
cortex.
this
age
example,
of
the
visual
hand
and
and
interesting).
in
glucose
metabolism
Participants
Children
aged
0–12
in
the
frontal
of
some
cortex.
This
coincides
with
the
appearance
months.
cognitively
complex
behaviours.
Method
Conclusion
Observations
assisted
with
PET
scans.
Results
seem
between
the
to
imply
that
structural
there
changes
is
in
a
certain
the
brain
correspondence
and
the
Procedure
development
PET
scans
were
used
to
investigate
glucose
metabolism.
life.
Results
0–1
to
156
month:
primary
Unit
glucose
sensory
metabolism
and
motor
in
the
cortex,
7—Developmental
brain
is
thalamus
psychology
conned
and
of
psychological
functions
in
the
rst
year
of
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
Infants
is
et
al
(1981)—Hindi
phoneme
a
even
lost
natural
for
later
,
ability
languages
probably
to
discriminate
they
due
to
are
not
this
between
exposed
to.
there
the
he
pruning.
Aim
or
she
Adults
compare
speaking
the
in
ability
infants,
to
differentiate
between
English-speaking
adults
a
infants
in
the
reinforced
electronically
turns
a
in
change
is
pressed
detected
phonemes
is
infant
interesting
This
–
T
o
discrimination
when
understanding
have
phonemes,
ability
Werker
auditory
with
the
activated
stimulus.
For
presentation
toy
animal
of
each
an
time
correctly.
a
button
change
in
when
they
thought
they
stimulus.
Hindi
and
Results
Hindi-
adults.
Infants
were
phonemes
just
as
as
able
to
discriminate
Hindi-speaking
between
Hindi
adults.
Participants
Hindi-speaking
speaking
adults,
infants
of
6–7
months
and
English-
English-speaking
between
adults.
Hindi
adults
were
not
able
to
discriminate
phonemes.
Method
Conclusion
Quasi-experimental
comparison
between
groups.
–
Up
to
a
certain
discriminate
age,
infants
between
have
natural
the
ability
language
to
sounds
without
Procedure
prior
Pairs
of
stimuli
were
used,
for
example,
/ta/
versus
The
critical
difference
in
this
pair
of
sounds
is
A
decrease
of
articulation:
the
tongue
is
placed
either
on
linguistic
ridge
or
on
the
back
of
the
upper
front
teeth.
between
Participants
–
For
were
infants,
infant
to
sounds
tested
this
turn
in
is
a
not
RESEARCH
or
her
Kolb
in
involves
head
and
Essential
✪
A
Fantie
studies
of
the
are
structure-function
needed
and
to
relationships
in
on
from
inferences
the
be
due
causes
to
lose
the
that
ability
are
not
to
discriminate
used
in
this
between
language.
an
(1989)—structure-function
based
evidence
make
may
language
loudspeaker
linguistic
Kolb
and
various
and
Fantie
in
(1989)
observations
both
about
developing
relationship
the
development
of
features
–
methods
one
paradigm
conditioning
understanding
combination
research
rst
towards
categorization
abilities
English.
discrimination
procedure
his
used
perceptual
This
phonemes
distinction
speech
experience—learning
the
people
alveolar
in
the
to
place
experience.
/T
a/
–
(Hindi).
language
types
of
summarized
involving
research
participants’
ndings
performance
on
task.
brain.
Results
Adults:
Aim
T
o
aggregate
function
evidence
relationship
on
for
the
development
categorization
of
based
structure-
on
–
healthy
regions
adult
were
subjects
active
(as
performed
established
the
by
test,
brain
frontal
imaging
techniques).
features.
–
Participants
Children
When
lobe
linguistic
of
conned
various
frontal
ages,
lobe
healthy
adults
and
adults
with
–
lesions.
Adult
patients
poorly
on
At
same
the
the
the
with
conned
frontal
lobe
lesions
did
very
test.
time,
non-linguistic
these
patients
modication
performed
of
the
normally
on
test.
Children:
Method
–
Summary
of
research
evidence
that
came
from
Children
T
est
combination
of
methods
(case
studies,
performed
when
they
were
very
on
the
young,
Chicago
but
Word
gradually
Fluency
their
observations,
performance
neuroimaging
poorly
a
improved
with
age.
research).
–
Even
very
adults)
on
young
the
children
performed
non-linguistic
well
(as
modication
of
well
the
as
test.
Procedure
–
Categorization
based
on
linguistic
features
was
Conclusion
measured
test
by
the
participants
required
to
Chicago
are
write
as
given
many
Word
a
Fluency
letter
words
(for
T
est.
In
example,
beginning
this
S)
with
T
aken
together
,
based
on
linguistic
letter
as
possible
Categorization
measured
were
many
by
a
required,
objects
in
the
based
given
on
for
or
example,
animals
as
(the
show
that
function)
categorization
depends
of
frontal
lobes
on
the
(structure).
time.
non-linguistic
modication
observations
features
this
development
–
these
and
of
to
this
test
write
they
features
where
the
could
participants
names
think
was
of
as
This
study
is
an
example
structure-function
always
requires
of
how
relationship
data
difcult
in
a
it
is
to
developing
study
brain.
It
triangulation.
of.
Developmental
psychology
157
Limitations
The
of
developmental
ability/strategy
weaker
due
to
ability
performance
one
or
of
processing.
two
two
using
It
a
is
controversy—if
on
a
test
factors:
different
very
neuroscience
in
either
an
strategy
difcult
to
we
children,
observe
this
a
could
difcult
be
underdeveloped
for
the
information
separate
between
the
natural
the
brain;
biological
these
learning
environment
These
7.1.2
two
(it
is
can
the
effect
take
processes
the
are
while
ignoring
Cognitive
that
other
the
of
development
interacting
of
is
responsible
is
a
body
of
developing
with
the
intertwined
and
it
on
one
aspect
of
the
problem
Object
viewpoints
exists
inability
and
to
understand
perspectives
SNOITINIFED
of
inability
to
conservation—the
object
More
(peer
of
adult)
Multiple
maturation
change
or
in
over
which
time—this
brain
area
cognitive
function,
we
adults.
the
areas
of
for
If
perform
becomes
nature
change
judging
more
same
different
on
in
the
functions,
problematic.
research—it
ethical
rely
is
not
possible
to
reasons.
mentally
reverse
permanence—understanding
even
inability
to
remains
the
same
even
when
it
is
not
an
necessary
Zone
of
for
that
an
object
perceived
children
them
to
with
solve
support
tasks
in
that
their
is
zone
development
proximal
of
development—the
development
cannot
do
on
his
or
comprised
her
own,
of
but
hypothetical
everything
can
do
a
with
the
understand
if
its
of
others
physical
who
is
other—an
more
interaction
informed
about
partner
the
subject
UNDERSTANDING
theories
development
of
have
and
existed
human
considered
Piaget
was
structural
interaction
ESSENTIAL
often
it
changes
knowledgeable
or
can
in
actually
variables
proximal
help
the
brain
with
inferences
potential
appearance
which
research
minimally
child
that
function
Scaffolding—providing
are
operation
of
of
manipulate
different
Lack
whether
observed
typically
,
for
Correlational
aspects
egocentrism—the
Irreversibility—the
of
because
making
is
the
brain.
tricky
neuroplasticity).
certain
development
other
people’
s
the
form
closely
Cognitive
Centration—focusing
of
for
caused
is
controversy—maturation
process
say
that
Localization
explanations.
Maturation/learning
to
learning
to
be
to
explain
children,
the
most
but
cognitive
two
theories
prominent
are
–
that
those
Piaget
are
task
of
Vygotsky
.
–
Inhelder’
s
See
However
,
three
its
the
system
as
and
a
of
cognitive
Inhelder
mountains
In
mountains
task
replication
has
(1956).
been
study
,
criticized
Borke
(1975)
theory
of
general
principles
about
knowledge
genetic
epistemology
.
In
this
framework,
is
viewed
as
a
type
of
adaptation,
children
as
young
as
3
or
4
able
to
perform
well
on
the
task
if
it
was
years
old
modied
cognitive
to
development
that
is
were
known
three
phenomenon
Piaget
complexity
.
demonstrated
Piaget’
s
(1956)
the
egocentrism.
for
Piaget’s
and
demonstrates
with
make
the
instructions
more
accessible.
See
Borke
two
(1975)
basic
processes
of
assimilation
and
accommodation.
More
Children
specically
,
his
theory
of
cognitive
development
claims
at
problems
children
move
progressively
through
a
series
of
stages.
theory
of
Children’
s
reasoning
cognitive
the
formal
to
their
motor
discovered
by
the
sensorimotor
development.
Piaget
for
this
An
stage
important
stage
is
is
stage
(birth
the
preoperational
to
2
by
stage
cognitive
See
and
applied
to
stage
can
concrete
only
solve
objects,
stage
abstract
thought
is
while
fully
“Concrete
“Formal
operational
Piaget’
s
theory
operational
stage
stage
(7–11
(11–16
years)”.
phenomenon
object
permanence.
is
criticized
for
the
notion
of
clear-cut
See
for
the
assumption
that
development
is
driven
by
years)”.
children’
s
reasoning
egocentrism,
maturation,
and
for
ignoring
certain
variables
is
such
characterized
operational
operational
years)”
biological
At
are
subordinate
stages,
“Sensorimotor
they
development”.
developed.
at
concrete
when
See
at
“Piaget’s
the
that
as
individual
differences.
See
"Evaluation
of
Piaget's
centration,
theory".
irreversibility
were
and
Inhelder’
s
stage
–
and
lack
demonstrated
(2–7
These
conservation
mountains
conservation
centration,
See
conservation.
Piaget’
s
task.
See
phenomena
tasks
and
Piaget
“Preoperational
“Piaget’s
Vygotsky’s
Lev
tasks
irreversibility
demonstrate
the
and
conservation.
conservation
(lack
of)
phenomena
tasks”.
on
of
Unit
7—Developmental
psychology
sociocultural
as
higher-order
social
the
role
a
process
cognitive
interaction,
of
functions.
158
theory
Vygotsky’
s
development
years)”.
Piaget’
s
of
three
of
in
signs
See
as
theory
of
functions
language
tools
views
in
and
and
culture.
It
focuses
emphasizes
education.
mastering
“Vygotsky’s
cognitive
internalizing
It
also
higher-order
sociocultural
the
role
explains
cognitive
theory”.
Vygotsky’
s
theory
supported
by
supporting
in
a
has
many
aspects
single
study
.
Research
such
mastering
scaffolding
and
development,
Vygotsky’s
elements
higher-order
more
and
so
of
the
so
theory
cognitive
on.
See
cannot
be
focused
as
the
functions,
knowledgeable
sociocultural
it
has
others
“Empirical
role
the
in
Vygotsky’
s
on
of
signs
role
of
However
,
theory
promoting
support
theory
philosophical
not
for
it
in
is
should
were
commonly
nature
be
intended
testable.
See
and
noted
to
criticized
lacking
be
that
for
some
of
too
support.
elements
philosophical
“Evaluation
being
empirical
and
Vygotsky’s
as
of
the
such
are
sociocultural
theory”.
theory”.
THEORY
PIAGET’S
THEORY
Essential
as
a
form
series
of
COGNITIVE
DEVELOPMENT
understanding
Piaget’s
✪
OF
theory
of
views
adaptation
clear-cut
Sensorimotor
cognitive
that
development
moves
of
progressively
a
child
Children’
s
through
a
stages.
movements
with
their
think.
Genetic
views
on
cognitive
intellectual
development
connected
processes
development
in
general
are
and
cannot
important
is
a
form
involved
in
of
adaptation.
adaptation
assimilation:
changing
of
to
the
world
better
representations
The
the
one’
s
t
behaviour
into
already
opposite
representation
referred
emphasize
to
its
disciplines
or
Cognitive
exists
Before
that,
realize
it
process—changing
(schema)
to
better
t
the
his
approach
as
fundamental
outside
“genetic
relation
even
Children’
s
when
when
to
epistemology”
knowledge
in
a
this
age
cognitive
on
the
of
their
reasoning
to
range
yet
they
of
cognitive
in
their
fully-edged
central
is
it
is
this
understand
outside
formed
stage
are
by
do
of
your
around
not
(2–7
able
mind,
to
but
age
that
is
an
perceptual
8–12
eld.
months.
see
the
object,
they
don’t
years)
perform
these
some
forms
of
forms
of
reasoning
are
not
this
stage
are:
take
other
operations.
phenomena
cognitive
of
Jean
Piaget
that
characterize
egocentrism—the
inability
to
perspectives
(1896–
centration—focusing
processes
are
qualitatively
while
all
ignoring
attention
all
other
on
one
aspect
of
a
aspects
different
irreversibility—the
a
development
series
of
children
clear-cut
cognitive
a
inability
to
mentally
reverse
the
lack
can
number
be
of
conservation—the
object
physically
appearance
of
stages
inability
grouped
into
remains
the
to
understand
same
even
that
when
its
changes.
of
Some
that
events
progressively
development
considerable
development
of
stages.
an
described
to
adults.
through
of
characterizes
ideas.
–
cognitive
how
children
development
following
cognitive
those
that
ability
children
children
sequence
Piaget
is
mind.
one’
s
–
Stages
their
exists.
situation
In
actions
that
psychology
.
development
of
based
move
and
in
their
world.
–
–
operations
phenomenon
permanence
people’
s
theory
from
result,
to
some
mental
–
–
perform
perception
existing
Some
is
the
years)
two
At
1980)
perform
permanence—the
Preoperational
mental
The
observe
2
secondary
(schemas)
accommodation:
of
is
are:
Object
He
to
stage
that
object
–
(birth
this
sensations—they
hands
They
object
–
and
at
epistemology
An
Piaget’
s
stage
reasoning
four
of
these
phenomena
were
demonstrated
in
Piaget’
s
major
famous
conservation
tasks.
See
“Piaget’s
conservation
stages:
tasks”.
–
sensorimotor
–
preoperational
–
concrete
stage
(birth
stage
to
(2–7
operational
2
years)
Egocentrism
was
and
(1956),
stage
(7–11
Inhelder
formal
operational
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
(11–16
Piaget’s
tasks
demonstrate
understanding
of
with
conservation
in
an
later
experiment
became
by
Piaget
known
mountains
task.
See
Piaget
and
Inhelder
as
the
(1956)
tasks
child
children
centration,
also
years).
understanding
Conservation
stage
stage
which
years)
three
–
demonstrated
years)
at
the
preoperational
irreversibility
and
lack
of
glasses
of
the
observes
two
the
glasses
process.
has
more
Then
water
the
in
it
child
is
asked
which
of
now.
conservation.
Procedure
In
a
typical
water
in
it.
and
The
amounts
one
of
task
child
of
the
the
asked
to
will
water
.
glasses
child
say
is
correctly
Then
into
shown
which
of
say
the
two
the
that
equal
glasses
the
glasses
experimenter
another
glass,
has
have
pours
narrower
more
water
but
water
equal
from
taller
.
The
Figure
7.1
Piaget’
s
conservation
task
using
containers
Developmental
of
water
psychology
159
changed).
Result
attention
If
is—and
understanding
child
will
say
of
that
conservation
the
taller
glass
has
not
has
been
more
acquired,
the
It
also
on
ignores
demonstrated
water
.
shows
one
centration
aspect
the
(the
of
other
child
the
(the
aspects).
is
not
child
focuses
situation—how
tall
Irreversibility
able
to
reverse
is
the
the
glass
also
action
mentally).
Interpretation
This
shows
that
the
lack
water
of
conservation
remained
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
are
(the
same,
Piaget
and
inability
to
understand
although
its
appearance
Inhelder
(1956)—the
three
mountains
task
understanding
Cognitive
year-old
the
egocentrism
children
are
is
a
function
egocentric
while
of
age:
most
most
four-
seven-year-olds
not.
Procedure
The
child
is
shown
mountains.
The
tree,
a
cross)
from
others.
model
from
introduces
a
that
The
are
doll.
he
The
includes
visible
child
where
a
three-dimensional
model
from
spends
or
she
doll
some
is
some
some
sits,
model
of
features
angles
time
and
snow,
and
not
looking
then
positioned
three
(like
at
the
the
at
a
visible
the
researcher
same
Figure
If
facing
the
mountains
from
a
different
viewpoint.
The
then
asked
to
describe
what
the
doll
can
see.
T
o
Three
mountains
task
the
child
picks
a
picture
that
corresponds
to
his
or
her
child
own
is
7.2
table
do
viewpoint,
and
not
the
doll’
s,
that
is
a
sign
of
cognitive
this,
egocentrism.
the
child
is
given
mountains
a
model
series
from
of
pictures
various
showing
angles,
and
the
three
asked
to
pick
the
Results
picture
that
corresponds
to
what
the
doll
can
see.
Piaget
and
choose
is
a
own
Essential
✪
The
Borke
(1975)—criticism
of
the
three
mountains
complexity
.
Critics
perform
well
have
task
said
has
that
been
criticized
young
children
its
do
not
age.
the
by
In
observed
their
the
doll’
s)
7–8
the
mountains
to
(1956)
corresponding
chose
choose
believed
for
of
not
overcome
asked
understanding
three
picture
always
(and
always
RESEARCH
Inhelder
function
almost
is
the
studies
picture
years
of
the
age
the
ability
doll’
s
children
corresponded
Cognitive
(children
of
to
viewpoint
four-year-old
that
viewpoint.
correct
that
to
to
their
egocentrism
this
age
almost
picture).
task
turn
was
the
table
seen
by
to
select
the
angle
that
they
Grover
.
Result
as
on
the
task
because
they
do
not
understand
Children
the
instructions,
not
because
they
are
actually
as
young
as
3–4
years
were
able
to
use
the
more
turntable
to
match
Grover’
s
viewpoint.
egocentric.
Conclusion
Procedure
–
Borke
(1975)
replicated
the
same
procedure,
but
with
a
Results
of
the
original
experiment
(Piaget,
Inhelder
1956)
few
might
have
been
biased
because
the
nature
and
engaging
of
the
task
modications.
–
The
content
of
the
task
was
changed
to
make
it
to
children.
Grover
(a
character
from
cognitively
The
study
was
used
instead
of
the
doll;
the
“boring”
were
replaced
by
a
farm
area
with
as
people,
trees,
animals,
a
lake
and
a
of
Instead
were
one
160
of
picking
given
on
Unit
a
two
one
from
identical
turntable
to
a
series
displays:
provide
one
their
7—Developmental
of
look
response.
psychology
(1975)
cognitive
according
to
Borke,
house.
pictures,
to
Borke
does
itself—children
overcome
originally
–
children.
are
not
dispute
indeed
cognitive
egocentric,
egocentrism
at
a
certain
and
age—
details
but
such
for
three
they
mountains
not
Sesame
egocentrism
Street)
complex
more
–
relatable
was
children
at
and
They
were
thought.
this
happens
earlier
than
was
THEORY
PIAGET’S
THEORY
OF
COGNITIVE
Concrete
operational
Children
this
at
understand
tasks.
as
when
cannot
Inductive
the
is
Essential
stage
no
and
name
suggests,
are
well
pass
they
applied
developed,
At
conservation
only
as
age
operational
stage
of
abstract
become
deductive
stage
thought
abstract
reasoning
(11–16
is
and
fully
fully
abilities
years)
developed.
reversible.
and
Mental
This
is
the
metacognition.
objects.
algebra).
deductive
problematic.
OF
PIAGET’S
THEORY
approximately
understanding
Piaget’s
this
operations
solve
concrete
(such
but
Formal
They
can
to
operations
(CONTINUED)
years)
egocentric.
successfully
abstract
is
(7–11
longer
problems
perform
EVALUATION
✪
the
reasoning
reasoning
are
reversibility
However
,
problems
They
stage
DEVELOPMENT
theory
development
is
is
mainly
driven
by
criticized
biological
for
the
idea
maturation
and
the
same
rate
as
dictated
by
biological
factors.
that
the
Defence
notion
of
clear-cut
stages
in
development.
These
it.
Criticism
–
The
of
clear-cut
stages
has
some
observations—sometimes
some
help
a
–
notion
higher
Piaget
force
from
are
challenged
children
capable
of
(especially
solving
tasks
intellectual
maturation
development.
to
He
be
has
the
with
Piaget
from
differences,
driving
this
neglect
of
sociocultural
variables
been
and
in
but
some
weaken
theory
order
probably
test
did
to
the
theory
proposed,
formulate
not
chose
more
is
deny
to
the
ignore
fundamental
it
is
but
do
hypotheses
existence
them
not
necessary
for
and
of
be
test
them.
individual
research
assumptions
refute
to
of
purposes
the
theory
rst.
criticized
Piaget
for
new
reductionist
to
biological
a
by
stage.
believed
of
adults)
been
considerations
When
the
role
changed
the
way
scientists
think
about
growing
of
children.
His
research
created
a
new
paradigm
where
was
importance.
learning.
intellectual
–
The
theory
does
differences.
It
not
take
assumes
into
that
account
all
development
of
children
given
individual
children
develop
at
THEORY
VYGOTSKY’S
Essential
✪
development
(peers
sociocultural
as
and
and
THEORY
–
understanding
Vygotsky’s
language
SOCIOCUL
TURAL
a
process
interaction
adults).
mastered
using
Culture
and
theory
of
with
more
such
as
culture
functions
voluntary
thinking.
through
knowledgeable
cognitive
Higher-order
as
cognitive
internalizing
Higher-order
tools
views
The
others
from
the
nothing
–
Culture
child’
s
else
is
with
a
a
plays
an
–
and
internalizing
In
cannot
fact,
process
of
through
language
adults,
and
be
viewed
development
internalizing
important
internalize
peers
–
processes
functions”
functions
because
factors
social
role
in
in
the
separately
itself
the
a
is
culture
interaction.
this
–
process.
numerous
language
they
between
processes
and
conceptual
lower-order
functions
is
in
functions
are
how
and
voluntary
or
are.
a
tool
tools
use
list
of
of
words
such
can
words
can
and
Language
is
a
the
be
as
be
pictures.
internalizing
for
cognitive
tools
associated
becomes
interactions
becomes
and
may
be
“higher-order
the
key
they
are
inuenced
the
least
focus
by
In
functions
are
and
cognitive
Higher-order
Zone
cognitive
cognitive
difference
such
used
for
For
enhanced
These
system
tool
signs.
as
of
cards
a
by
signs,
using
become
tool
for
and
mastering
mastered
example,
through
memorizing
cards
signs
with
for
the
memory
.
in
this
abstract
sense
language
thinking
and
culture.
culture.
Higher-order
All
memory
signs.
child
culture.
but
internalized
Language
Children
of
include
semantic
The
conscious
are
language
development
functions
higher-order
Using
–
cognitive
attention,
of
divided
into
functions”.
the
the
Higher-order
sociocultural
most
biological
“lower-order
by
of
–
–
proximal
development
potential
theory
sociocultural
factors.
the
a
child
there
are
three
areas
of
achievement.
The
zone
can
do
The
zone
what
development
of
of
actual
development
independently
,
the
of
proximal
child
can
knowledgeable
without
denes
the
development
do
with
other”
(for
the
help
what
from
(ZPD)
help
of
example,
a
an
Developmental
the
child
others.
denes
“more
adult).
psychology
161
–
The
out-of-reach
achieve
even
zone
with
denes
help
from
what
the
child
cannot
Role
of
learning
Vygotsky
suggested
others.
of
development.
on
the
ZPD:
give
For
that
learning
this,
should
education
students
tasks
be
should
that
they
one
be
step
ahead
focused
cannot
solve
by
adults.
T
o
Out of reach
themselves,
but
achieve
adults
this
can
solve
with
provide
some
help
from
scaffolding
Zone of proximal
development (ZPD)
Current
understanding
Can work
unassisted
Figure
7.3
Zone
of
proximal
RESEARCH
Essential
form
of
Empirical
support
for
Vygotsky’s
support
various
for
Vygotsky’s
experiments
sociocultural
–
understanding
Empirical
✪
development
that
theory
show
comes
the
role
in
of
In
the
words
the
no-cards
and
developing
higher-order
functions,
the
role
of
others
and
scaffolding
in
and
so
on.
The
theory
also
the
offers
explanation
for
the
participants
memorize
simply
heard
the
them
across
various
age
groups
in
these
experiments
following.
In
pre-school
conicting
children
memory
was
not
aided
by
the
an
cards;
alternative
to
promoting
–
development,
condition,
more
showed
knowledgeable
had
signs
Comparison
in
theory
ndings
performance
on
the
task
was
equally
poor
in
both
in
conditions.
research
such
research
as
Piaget
and
Inhelder
(1956)
and
–
Borke
In
adults,
performance
conditions.
had
Alternative
explanation
for
the
ndings
Adults
already
did
not
Vygotsky’
s
In
internalized
schoolchildren,
theory
provides
an
explanation
for
some
of
discrepancies
example,
memory
the
in
the
differences
ndings
in
of
ndings
other
(on
the
however
,
pre-school
both
because
they
strategies.
performance
level)
(1956)
and
Borke
(1975)
between
could
be
cards
and
good
(on
the
that
the
experimenter
in
Borke’
s
they
on
the
were
task
was
not
using
adult
level)
when
they
were.
Piaget
on
the
task
attributed
Pre-school
fact
when
researchers.
Performance
Inhelder
the
in
cards
the
the
observed
to
good
the
researchers
poor
and
equally
need
of
–
other
For
was
(1975).
study
played
Schoolchildren
Adults
Poor
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Good
a
children
more
active
role.
The
experimenter
provided
children
with
a
With
practice
task
pictures.
and
With
used
this
a
help,
turntable
children
as
a
were
“scaffold”
able
to
instead
cards
of
demonstrate
a
Without
higher
level
Leontyev
of
cognitive
(1931):
higher-order
signs
as
cognitive
a
tool
for
mastering
T
able
Leontyev
(1903–1979)
conducted
a
series
of
that
higher-order
cognitive
functions
of
the
the
use
studies
of
cultural
(Leontyev
tools
1931),
(signs).
For
participants
are
in
different
is
in
their
required
to
memorize
a
list
of
15
simple
by
the
experimenter
.
Experimental
words
conditions
the
children
adult
level
can
of
use
cards
as
performance
a
tool
on
this
ZPD.
one
with
a
more
knowledgeable
other
read
More
out
that
ages
Interaction
were
school-age
and
developed
example,
of
that
memory
,
task
through
shows
experiments
for
showing
7.1
functions
This
AN
cards
development.
were
evidence
comes
from
research
studies
showing
that
as
interaction
with
a
“more
knowledgeable
other”
leads
to
follows.
higher
–
Participants
were
given
30
cards
with
help
them
to
pictures
that
rates
of
use
When
cards
the
162
a
tool
participants
and
word
Unit
as
put
to
heard
aside
one
a
word,
that
memorize
they
would
could
help
look
later
.
7—Developmental
words.
them
psychology
development
(1985)
“7.3.1
in
children.
See
they
Nedospasova
could
cognitive
at
the
remember
in
Role
of
peers
and
play”.
EVALUATION
Vygotsky’
s
theory
philosophical
requires
–
in
commonly
nature
more
of
generic
such,
the
7.1.3
a
was
criticized
lacking
of
is
study
.
Empathy—the
feel
SNOITINIFED
the
it
on
broad
various
ability
along
shoes
emotional
of
with
to
being
THEORY
too
in
support.
beyond
model.
the
to
This
tested
elements
of
the
person.
was
a
in
a
should
what
has
to
single
be
others
place
both
and
his
natural
the
research
followers
that
process
elements
of
the
theory
are
not
of
experiment
due
to
relied
is,
its
on
as
the
primary
articiality
.
so-called
experiments
method
Instead,
“pedagogical
incorporated
into
the
teaching.
tested
and
feel
Reading
yourself
cognitive
theory
of
and
mind;
people’
s
of
mind
intentions—one
the
ability
to
infer
of
the
the
components
purpose
of
behind
theory
other
actions
components
Theory
Rational
opposed
scientic
he
Some
all.
experiments”;
empathy
ability
It
of
studies.
at
Vygotsky
the
It
separate
testable
whole.
be
understand
them;
another
go
psychological
culture
too
Its
to
Development
and
for
empirical
intended
specic
theory
theory
experimental
in
and
SOCIOCULTURAL
–
theory
boundaries
As
is
VYGOTSKY’S
clarication.
Vygotsky’
s
–
OF
imitation
procedure
involving
of
models
paradigm—an
animals
(apes)
experimental
imitating
the
mental
of
mind—the
states
(such
in
novel
cognitive
ability
intentions
or
to
attribute
beliefs)
to
others
actions
Understanding
human
as
of
false
beliefs—one
of
the
situations
components
predict
the
of
theory
behaviour
of
of
mind;
others
the
ability
based
on
to
correctly
their
subjective
beliefs
ESSENTIAL
Empathy
Theory
of
cognitive
to
take
UNDERSTANDING
and
mind
theory
is
component
perspectives,
specic
abilities
false
beliefs.
than
empathy
as
At
of
broader
of
theory
same
of
is
the
mind
theory
of
Similarly
,
technology
ability
apes
ability
such
it
does
not
mind
an
is
Theory
Animal
of
See
mind:
studies
of
“Empathy
help
of
theory
mind.
as
chimpanzees)
and
animal
us
get
have
the
of
insight
shows
ability
to
into
that
and
false
In
a
“rational
et
al
(2007)
ability
not
to
be
Essential
✪
witnessed
is
development
sequence
of
apes
sequence.
the
great
understand
an
(such
able
to
See
AND
person
and
is
paradigm”
witnessed
that
to
by
involved
an
demonstrate
intentions
was
problem-solving
Buttelmann
THEORY
et
OF
al
ape,
the
ability
experiencing.
emotional.
ability
to
The
orangutans)
beliefs.
See
that
have
greater
the
Krupenye
et
al
as
in
human
young
as
children
18
months
other
people.
unsuccessful,
actions
See
they
rather
Meltzoff
Even
when
can
go
than
the
easily
novel
represent
straight
imitating
to
the
act
the
they
correct
unsuccessful
(1995)
from
that
4
years
to
It
old,
cognitive
process
two
human
beliefs.
children
This
also
was
acquire
the
demonstrated
novel
the
use
this
purpose.
of
this
ability
.
It
the
Sally-Anne
should
be
task
noted
specially
that
autistic
designed
children
for
lack
on
and
See
Baron-Cohen,
Leslie
and
Frith
(1985)
could
past
(2007)
experiences.
what
another
components:
component
information
false
MIND
understand
has
understand
chimpanzees’
genuine
based
to
Buttelmann
understanding
is
eye-tracking
actor’
s
Theory of mind is both broader and narrower than empathy
.
Empathy
the
were
reduced
EMPATHY
before
understand
experience.
of
beliefs.
imitation
never
mind
of
with
situations
of
children
intentions
ability
–
false
use
establish
mind”.
Starting
intentions
understand
to
narrower
studies
an
Research
theory
bonobos,
the
emotional
Human
component.
to
with
researchers
(2016)
understanding
include
research
allowed
(chimpanzees,
Theory
because
modern
the
includes
and
–
concepts
While
general
also
intentions
time,
the
empathy
.
empathy
reading
the
mind:
than
about
of
cognitive
empathy
other
is
people’
s
what
other
The
emotional
people
Theory
of
(beliefs,
intentions,
it
is
the
mind
ability
intentions
and
to
is
are
component
of
empathy
is
feeling
feeling.
the
ability
to
knowledge)
understand
perspectives.
attribute
to
others.
another
It
is
a
mental
In
person’
s
purely
states
other
cognitive
Developmental
words,
beliefs,
ability
.
psychology
163
As
a
and
concept,
not
conned
experiences.
of
theory
narrower
theory
does
not
than
to
mind
is
It
example,
mind,
include
but
simultaneously
is
understanding
For
of
of
empathy
.
broader
other
people’
s
understanding
not
empathy
.
emotional
It
is
broader
because
it
is
emotional
false
beliefs
narrower
is
part
because
it
components.
Cognitive
to
components
Cognitive
ability
represent
mental
to
ability
Emotional
understand
of
states:
experiences
of
empathy
-
false
-
intentions
beliefs
others
Figure
RESEARCH
Essential
Buttelmann
al
(2007)—chimpanzees’
understanding
Chimpanzees’
✪
et
reproduction
of
theory
of
sequences
Empathy
ability
to
and
theory
of
mind
understand
intentions
Results
mind
of
7.4
cannot
actions
be
reduced
observed
in
to
the
simple
past.
When
there
human
was
turned
chimpanzees
no
on
rational
the
explanation
apparatus
imitated
this
with
for
his
why
leg
or
the
his
head,
behaviour
.
Aim
T
o
test
from
theory
simple
of
mind
ability
to
in
the
predict
chimpanzee
actions
of
by
separating
others
based
However
,
when
example,
by
the
switched
the
the
action,
human’
s
behaviour
was
restrained
(for
it
on
carrying
a
bucket),
the
chimpanzees
simply
past
apparatus
on
with
their
hand.
They
performed
experiences.
same
but
in
a
more
accessible
way
.
Participants
Conclusion
6
chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees,
like
humans,
intentions
behind
the
memorize
patterns
understand
actions
of
others.
the
goals
They
and
don’t
just
Method
Experiment
(rational
imitation
of
actions,
they
represent
psychological
paradigm).
states.
Procedure
A
chimpanzee
unsuccessful
imitation
There
on.
an
However
,
the
or
–
body
a
leg.
The
apparatus
on,
the
to
rst
and
a
to
an
novel
that
actor
performing
situation:
There
heavy
amused
demonstrated
then
switch
on
were
unusual
produced
were
the
two
body
had
bucket
the
a
“rational
with
always
light
by
the
apparatus,
an
for
sound
when
machine.
apparatus
was
used
and
the
given
a
unusual
example
The
was
turn.
part
the
of
head
conditions.
part
no
how
chimpanzee
experimenter
experimenter
a
in
Chimpanzees
experimenter
switched
exposed
paradigm”.
was
turned
was
attempts
was
used
choice
both
(for
because
the
example
he
Figure
was
holding
7.5
because
his
There
be
164
was
no
switched
Unit
visible
on
with
reason
a
experimenter
hands
were
hands).
Buttelmann
–
The
why
the
apparatus
hand.
7—Developmental
psychology
could
not
et
al
(2007)
full
turning
(a),
then
on
the
because
light
he
with
chose
his
to
foot
(b)
RESEARCH
Essential
The
✪
et
al
(2016)—understanding
of
that
modern
great
technology
apes
have
false
beliefs
Researchers
understanding
use
establish
Krupenye
(eye
the
tracking)
ability
to
allows
us
understand
to
apes
were
used
in
great
eye-tracking
looking
in
apes
technology
anticipation
of
to
further
see
where
the
actions.
false
Results
beliefs.
Apes
Aim
T
o
man
investigate
the
ability
to
understand
false
beliefs
in
great
that
spent
in
the
was
more
time
video
believed
not
the
looking
stack
at
King
King
the
stack
Kong
Kong
to
was
they
be
knew
under
under
the
(even
if
actually).
apes.
Conclusion
Participants
Three
species
Great
of
apes—chimpanzees,
bonobos
apes
possess
the
ability
to
understand
false
beliefs.
and
orangutans.
Method
Experiment;
variable
repeated
was
measures
measured
using
design.
The
eye-tracking
dependent
technology
.
Procedure
Apes
were
them
dressed
shown
tall
haystacks
–
King
in
a
and
Kong
video
a
hits
other
–
The
man
disappears
–
The
King
Kong
human
actors,
one
The
setting
included
man
and
quickly
hides
of
two
under
haystacks.
control
haystack
two
suit.
door
.
the
of
the
with
Kong
one
(in
the
a
King
(in
behind
actor
either
condition)
the
the
door
.
stays
or
in
hides
experimental
the
original
under
the
position
other
condition).
Figure
–
When
the
smacks
man
the
returns,
stack
RESEARCH
Essential
he
he
is
thinks
holding
King
Meltzoff
a
Kong
long
is
pole
and
7.6
False-belief
experiments
with
great
apes
he
under
.
(1995)—representation
of
intentions
in
human
children
understanding
✪
Human
to
represent
children
the
as
young
intentions
of
as
18
months
other
people.
have
the
ability
Aim
T
o
in
investigate
human
the
ability
to
represent
the
intentions
of
others
children.
Participants
Forty
18-month-old
children,
equal
number
of
boys
and
girls.
Method
Experiment;
independent
measures
design.
Procedure
Children
in
completed
the
rectangular
wooden
In
the
control
acts.
For
block
box.
This
of
the
same,
wood
action
experimental
exactly
group
example,
to
the
push
the
the
action
an
adult
activated
condition
but
watched
a
a
a
perform
small
rectangular
Figure
button
in
movements
the
adult
missed
the
unsuccessful.
button,
and
The
number
not
differ
as
a
The
was
not
dependent
accomplished
used
in
the
experiment
in
of
successfully
the
two
accomplished
conditions.
Children
imitation
in
the
acts
did
experimental
For
result
did
not
go
through
a
period
of
trial-and-error
but
the
went
buzzer
Equipment
were
group
example,
7.7
a
Results
buzzer
.
adult’
s
was
adult
used
straight
for
the
correct
action.
activated.
variable
imitation
was
acts
the
by
number
the
child.
of
successfully
Conclusion
Researchers
imitating
adult’
s
concluded
the
actions
mental
states
of
that
the
children
adult,
were
but
not
just
blindly
representing
the
(intentions).
Developmental
psychology
165
THE
This
In
SALL
Y
-ANNE
task
this
task
basket
the
and
marble
child
will
is
used
the
shown
child
Anne
from
“in
the
is
has
the
understands
be
TASK
commonly
a
to
box.
basket
false
establish
two
Sally
to
dolls
takes
the
beliefs,
children
(Sally
a
box.
the
if
and
marble,
Sally
answer
possess
Anne).
places
returns,
will
be
Sally
is
has
Anne
Now
a
Figure
has
takes
Sally
7.8
a
the
comes
Sally-Anne
Baron-Cohen,
RESEARCH
✪
the
ability
question
basket”.
is,
the
beliefs.
narrative
leaves
“Where
child
accompanied
the
will
room.
she
doesn’t
Anne
marble.
She
marble
Leslie
Baron-Cohen,
puts
goes
out
of
of
4–5
years,
understand
her
marble
for
a
be
by
While
looking
understand
visuals.
she
is
for
false
Sally
away
,
the
has
Anne
marble?”
beliefs,
the
a
moves
If
the
answer
and
She
will
Sally
look
for
beliefs,
Leslie
but
Anne.
has
her
a
box.
basket.
her
puts
wants
it
to
into
play
the
box.
with
her
marble.
marble?
task
and
children
is
walk.
basket
back.
into
Frith
and
(1985)
Frith
(1985)—understanding
Method
human
false
the
out
understanding
to
If
a
and
basket.
Where
age
is
basket
This
Sally
the
the
the
follows
her
false
Sally.
Sally
By
in
of
box”.
This
Essential
What
it
and
“in
understanding
normally
this
does
have
not
The
and
Sally-Anne
false
beliefs
in
human
children
procedure
task.
apply
Results
to
children
with
autism.
–
–
T
o
investigate
false
Most
with
Aim
the
ability
of
human
children
to
clinically
Down
Most
normal
syndrome
autistic
children
children
(86%)
(85%)
passed
(80%)
failed
and
the
the
most
task
children
successfully
.
task.
understand
beliefs.
Conclusion
Human
children
normally
acquire
the
ability
to
understand
Participants
false
Clinically
children
normal
with
pre-school
Down
children
syndrome,
and
(mean
autistic
age
4.5
beliefs
Unit
7—Developmental
psychology
the
age
of
4
or
5
years.
years),
children.
Autistic
ability
166
around
children
to
(at
represent
least
false
at
this
beliefs.
age)
do
not
possess
the
7.2
Developing
7.2.1
Gender
Congenital
SNOITINIFED
disorder
identity
adrenal
causing
testosterone
in
hyperplasia
one
the
an
to
have
prenatal
identity
and
social
(CAH)—a
abnormally
roles
genetic
high
levels
Gender
of
female
constancy—the
constant
in
time
and
idea
that
gender
unchangeable
is
(consists
xed,
gender
stability
third
of
and
gender
of
an
Gender,
with
gender
am
a
identity
is
based
on
student”,
theory”
behaviour”.
one’
s
say
in
Social
behaviour
might
male,
based
on
regarding
their
the
biological
sex
socialization—internalizing
social
norms
of
consistency)
and
gender
roles:
the
behaviour
“I
what
groups
am
father”).
a
a
person
See
identies
“3.1.1
T
wo
inuential
theories
two
questions:
Kohlberg’
s
(Kohlberg
that
“Unit
roles
based
social
3
are
on
Sociocultural
sets
of
identity
is
a
set
approach
expectations
belonging
to
of
social
1966)
and
have
suggested
cognitive
gender
answers
to
developmental
schema
theory
(Bem
these
theory
1981).
Social
In
identity
as
UNDERSTANDING
identity
(“I
oneself
gender
concepts
Social
of
expectations
individual
sex-appropriate
ESSENTIAL
perception
category
roles—societal
behaviour
Gender
labelling,
a
period
Gender
Gender
identity—the
or
Kohlberg’
s
developmental
theory
of
gender
,
the
trigger
for
to
the
development
of
the
mechanism
See
“Kohlberg’s
gender
identity
is
gender
constancy
,
and
regarding
groups.
internalized
of
its
development
is
cognitive
dissonance.
One
developmental
theory
of
gender”.
social
Slaby
and
Frey
(1975),
in
partial
support
of
this
theory
,
roles.
demonstrated
Gender
sets
of
identity
societal
behaviour
.
is
part
of
social
expectations
Gender
identity
identity
.
regarding
is
formed
Gender
roles
gender
constancy
prefer
identity
See
and
on
the
basis
Slaby
(or
a
refers
third
to
to
one’
s
self-perception
as
male
gender
factors
in
the
formation
of
In
gender
following.
Sex-determining
term
hormones
prenatally
,
effects
on
to
same-sex
gender
adult
Frey
models.
(1975)
of
schema
gender
theory
,
identity
is
the
trigger
gender
for
the
labelling,
and
its
development
is
schematic
the
processing.
See
(1981).
support
of
These
injected
attention
category).
consequence
the
paying
gender
of
information
include
on
or
identity
–
scores
of
Bem
Biological
high
roles.
mechanism
female
with
gender-appropriate
development
Gender
children
are
According
internalized
that
have
(such
been
as
testosterone),
shown
gender-related
to
produce
behaviour
in
later
when
this,
Martin
processing
of
simple
Martin
(1989)
Social
factors
(1989)
based
demonstrated
on
gender
gender
labelling
that
rigid
stereotyping
at
a
young
is
a
age.
See
long-
life.
in
the
formation
of
gender
See
identity
“Sex-determining
hormones”.
Social
–
Chromosomal
variations
(T
urner’
s
syndrome
in
inuences
divided
and
Kleinfelter’
s
similar
effects.
Cognitive
syndrome
See
factors
in
males)
“Chromosomal
in
the
were
in
the
development
of
gender
can
be
based
on
females
shown
to
into
two
categories:
have
–
gender
socialization
by
parents
–
gender
socialization
by
peers.
variations”.
formation
of
gender
The
idea
of
gender
socialization
by
parents
is
social
identity
cognitive
These
include
the
way
children
process
Research
in
this
area
has
focused
on
“Gender
socialization
socialization
What
is
the
main
cognitive
trigger
of
gender
of
vicarious
reinforcement.
by
parents”.
What
is
the
cognitive
mechanism
that
is
by
peers
formation
of
gender
reinforced
responsible
(1988)
by
occurs
other
when
gender-consistent
children.
showed
that
Draper
gender-related
and
differences
in
for
behaviour
the
are
identity?
Cashdan
–
concept
questions.
behaviours
–
the
answering
Gender
two
and
gender-related
See
information.
theory
are
most
pronounced
when
children
play
in
sex-
identity?
segregated
groups.
See
“Gender
socialization
Developmental
by
peers”.
psychology
167
SEX-DETERMINING
HORMONES
–
Essential
Animal
studies—for
✪
exposed
to
sex-determining
hormones
such
in
the
prenatal
period
has
been
shown
to
on
sex-typical
behaviour
in
later
the
These
hormones
are
produced
in
the
and
have
long-term
effects
on
the
in
turn
Being
regulates
exposed
to
the
such
production
hormones
of
in
have
irreversible
play
hormones
the
in
prenatal
of
that
injecting
the
of
male-typical
behaviour
engaged
in
higher
levels
in
of
later
rough-
even
(tried
to
demonstrated
mount
other
male-typical
female
rats)
(Goy
1980).
later
Studying
to
humans
have
with
high
rare
levels
of
genetic
disorders
testosterone
in
that
the
cause
prenatal
effects.
possible
approaches
to
study
include
(CAH).
the
tumble
CHROMOSOMAL
example
Research
frequently
following.
Essential
prenatally
period
period—for
Some
rats
and
behaviour
McEwen
them
can
shown
rats
hypothalamus,
–
life.
was
prenatal
and
which
it
female
life.
sexual
period
incidence
female
and-tumble
Sex-determining
developing
have
life.
effects
in
as
increases
testosterone
long-term
example,
understanding
testosterone
Being
in
play
,
congenital
shows
that
male-typical
choosing
adrenal
girls
with
behaviour
boys
as
hyperplasia
CAH
(such
playmates)
engage
as
more
rough-and-
(Hines
2004).
VARIATIONS
understanding
–
T
urner’
s
syndrome:
XO,
females
who
lack
the
second
X
chromosome
Chromosomal
✪
variations
also
correlate
with
sex-atypical
–
Kleinfelter’
s
syndrome:
XXY
,
males
who
have
an
extra
X
behaviour
.
chromosome.
Some
people
have
atypical
chromosomes
deviating
from
Research
the
normal
XY
patter n
for
males
and
XX
patter n
in
this
chromosomes
females,
known
area
is
limited,
but
it
does
show
that
atypical
for
correlate
with
sex-atypical
behaviour
.
as:
THEORY
KOHLBERG’S
Essential
✪
In
THEORY
OF
GENDER
Collectively
understanding
Kohlberg’s
gender
its
DEVELOPMENTAL
identity
theory
,
is
development
the
gender
is
trigger
for
constancy
,
cognitive
the
and
development
the
mechanism
of
labelling,
of
contribute
goes
to
Kohlberg
through
the
(1966),
following
the
development
of
gender
The
is
stages.
Description
labelling
This
is
the
when
themselves
that
or
children
and
girls,
can
other
identify
but
people
they
also
gender
changes
when
changes
(for
when
puts
boy
becomes
can
a
2
years
girl),
change
(over
stability
time)
This
is
that
gender
in
when
grow
boys
will
on
a
and
stable
up
to
be
become
gender
can
be
changed
Gender
This
is
consistency
perceived
(across
regardless
time
a
168
Unit
when
physical
or
boy
all
constancy
.
as
as
follows.
the
of
development
gender
of
of
true
gender
identity
constancy
.
development
dissonance.
experienced
of
gender
identity
as
recognize
in
time
one's
is
behaviour
one's
people
beliefs.
their
or
would
In
order
normally
try
to
to
the
is
avoid
change
belief
their
behaviour
.
(I
am
a
boy
,
and
play
should
with
either
dolls.
So
change
why
my
am
I
playing
with
such
either
boys
belief
and
decide
behaviour
and
stop
dolls?
4
years
girl,
dolls.
or
change
But
is
5–7
constant
in
passage
factors.
dress
7—Developmental
they
that
truly
changes
appearance,
a
and
but
context.
and
For
is
of
example,
still
I
my
that
I
cannot
change
my
belief
playing
because
do
I
am
a
boy
.
psychology
years
So
I
should
stop
playing
with
with
gender
(girls
something
by
the
wearing
with
discomfort
not
he
gender
mothers,
gender
other
when
dissonance
physical
dress,
fathers),
stable
of
Cognitive
example,
that
children
is
see
situations)
gender
time.
still
various
of
Gender
consistency
as
constant.
will
is
for
mechanism
cognitive
discomfort
a
Gender
constancy.
gender
believe
appearance
a
gender
development
theory
trigger
inconsistent
boys
as
and
Age
is
Gender
to
known
stability
understanding
The
Stage
is
dissonance.
Kohlberg's
According
this
gender
dolls.)
is
RESEARCH
Slaby
and
theory
Essential
As
✪
Frey
(1975)—support
for
gender
constancy
suggests
more
that
is
The
achieved,
selective
gender
Kohlberg’s
cognitive
developmental
gender
understanding
demonstrating
This
of
children
attention
constancy
is
to
start
same-sex
the
trigger
dependent
children’
s
variable
were
was
xated
the
on
amount
either
of
of
time
the
the
sides
of
the
screen.
models.
of
eyes
the
Results
development
of
gender
identity
.
Children
more
Aim
T
o
investigate
the
role
of
gender
constancy
in
the
to
same-sex
higher
levels
attention
of
to
gender
same-sex
constancy
role
showed
models.
attention
For
given
with
selective
example,
boys
low
on
gender
constancy
looked
at
the
models.
male
model
gender
about
constancy
48%
of
looked
the
at
time,
male
while
models
boys
61%
high
of
on
the
time.
Participants
Fifty-ve
children
2–5
years
The
old.
opposite
was
true
for
girls.
Conclusion
Method
Correlational
interviews
study;
and
the
variables
were
measurement
measured
of
eye
Gender
through
xation
constancy
development
time.
attention
to
of
is
an
important
gender
same-sex
identity
milestone
because
it
in
the
triggers
selective
models.
Procedure
Results
The
level
of
gender
constancy
was
assessed
through
of
the
study
development
interview.
Following
this,
children
were
shown
a
lm
in
man
and
a
woman
engaged
in
parallel
activities
(they
re,
the
played
woman
a
musical
were
on
instrument,
different
drank
sides
of
juice).
the
The
gender
suggest
identity
that
cognitive
precede
social
factors
in
factors:
the
social
of
gender
is
not
possible
until
the
child
selectively
built
pays
a
of
which
learning
a
also
an
man
attention
to
same-sex
models.
and
screen.
THEORY
GENDER
SCHEMA
Essential
enough
(1981)
–
understanding
According
✪
THEORY—BEM
for
to
the
mechanism
of
gender
schema
formation
its
of
theory
,
gender
development
is
gender
identity
schematic
to
labelling
start,
and
Gender-typical
consequence
is
stereotypes
the
The
processing.
the
Gender
schema
theory
does
not
question
the
idea
processes
a
drive
different
the
development
perspective
on
the
of
key
gender
,
trigger
as
but
well
formation
of
this
process.
It
builds
on
the
concept
of
to
a
general
in
understanding
“Unit
2
of
Cognitive
schema
see
approach
“2.1.2
to
schema
theory
suggests
the
Essential
than
older
children
children.
expectations,
on
actually
This
gender
information
are
have
shows
stringent
that,
alone
and
rather
a
gender
labelling—the
Similar
person’
s
identity
simple
life.
is
and
others
as
ability
boys
or
of
girls.
of
gender
processing.
identity
Once
development
gender
a
schema.
As
we
know,
is
labelled,
schema
it
inuences
Schema
gender
processing
schema
in
starts
all
stages
ltering
including
all
encoding,
gender-related
inuence
of
gender
that
labelling
the
on
child
perceives.
information
processing
Procedure
more
processing,
weakened
gender
of
of
following.
(1989)—the
labelling
aspects
development
a
behaviour”.)
understanding
Younger
✪
Martin
other
are
processing.
schema.
information
RESEARCH
in
themselves
mechanism
schematic
so
Gender
of
label
information
theory”
the
behaviour
the
becomes
(For
found
and
information
it
as
is
mechanism
in
normal
that
The
provides
are
trigger
children
cognitive
stereotypes
of
with
than
gender
contrary
is
a
to
stereotypes
powerful
age
–
Kohlberg’s
gender
Participants
children
were
(four
inuence
described
as
stereotypes
“T
ommy’
s
best
strengthened.
with
given
boys
and
having
a
friend
airplanes”),
and
counter-stereotyped
descriptions
four
girls).
stereotyped
is
a
boy
,
others
interest
(for
eight
target
children
interest
and
were
of
Some
(for
T
ommy
likes
described
example,
were
example,
as
to
play
having
“T
ommy’
s
a
best
Aim
friend
T
o
investigate
the
development
of
gender
stereotyping
is
a
girl,
and
T
ommy
likes
to
play
with
a
toy
kitchen
with
set”).
age.
–
Participants
child
in
the
were
story
then
asked
would
like
how
to
likely
play
it
with
was
each
that
of
the
the
Participants
Seventy-two
children
aged
following
toys:
machine,
doll
car
,
train
engine
(masculine),
sewing
4–10.
(feminine).
Method
Quasi-experiment
(comparison
of
age
groups).
Developmental
psychology
169
Results
There
was
predicted
–
a
difference
toy
in
the
way
younger
and
older
children
doll
preferences.
Y
ounger
children
solely
the
because
I
was
told
that
he
likes
to
play
with
feminine
toys).
(3–6
years
old)
based
their
judgment
Conclusion
on
target’
s
sex
(T
ommy
will
like
playing
with
a
Rigid
car
because
he
is
a
boy
[even
though
I
was
told
that
is
likes
to
play
with
a
toy
kitchen
a
Older
children
(6–10
years
consequence
processing
of
simple
based
gender
on
gender
labelling
stereotyping
at
a
young
age.
set).
As
–
information
he
old)
used
information
the
child
develops,
information
processing
becomes
more
about
complex.
the
target
GENDER
Gender
direct
interests
(T
ommy
SOCIALIZATION
Essential
✪
child’
s
BY
will
like
playing
with
a
PARENTS
understanding
socialization
tuition
or
by
vicarious
–
parents
can
take
the
form
of
learning.
for
Theory
Gender
with
can
–
3
by
social
by
theory
,
occur
direct
parents
cognitive
Sociocultural
his
can
theory
approach
Bandura
claimed
be
described
(Bandura
to
and
1986).
behaviour”.
that
gender
See
In
that
line
socialization
in
with
adults
gender
reinforce
behaviour
that
is
stereotypes)
models.
GENDER
SOCIALIZATION
Essential
understanding
BY
3
has
been
behaviour
are
shown
most
that
groups.
gender-related
obvious
This
when
suggests
peer
inuence
involved
in
differences
children
that
play
there
is
in
a
gender
socialization
behaviours
other
are
by
peers
reinforced,
occurs
both
the
reinforced
is
tendency
especially
imitate
learn
when
approach
demonstrated
stereotypically
to
can
Social
studies
studies
they
can
cognitive
to
same-sex
sex-typical
identify
theory”
with
in
behaviour”.
the
(1988)
!Kung
showed,
bushmen
of
in
their
western
observational
Botswana,
number
of
available
playmates
is
greater
,
that
children
more
likely
to
form
sex-segregated
peer
groups
and,
as
a
level
their
behaviour
becomes
more
gender
typical.
In
this
socialization.
when
directly
gender-consistent
and
vicariously
,
by
children
behavioural
This
is
and
the
in
because
Peer
of
are
showed
children
families
playmates
groups
differences
families
than
foraging
number
large.
foraging
differences
do
in
not
available
are
not
not
so
so
less
sex-related
farming
settle
to
families.
down
their
for
long,
children
sex-segregated,
and
is
hence
obvious.
Attachment
Attachment—an
a
caregiver
caregiver’
s
emotional
that
presence
SNOITINIFED
Attachment
bond
manifests
and
between
itself
distressed
styles—individual
in
an
being
when
infant
calm
in
the
separated
variations
in
attachment
behaviours
Imprinting—a
the
infant
receives
physical
when
in
and
emotional
contact
with
environmental
Secure
base
study
of
animal
behaviour
in
7—Developmental
psychology
learning,
as
a
a
sequence
biologically
in
response
the
Separation
starting
idea
that
point
for
infants
the
natural
the
a
use
signs
attachment
of
anxiety
gure
the
exploration
environment
distress—acute
when
to
trigger
hypothesis—the
gure
surrounding
discomfort
environments
Unit
the
rapid
comfort
caregiver
Ethology—the
of
behavioural
specic
attachment
comfort—the
form
pre-programmed
of
Contact
170
get
sex-
certain
gender
that
(which
children
“3.1.2
Cashdan
when
not
and
others
and
in
children.
7.2.2
and
among
study
Gender
See
doll
research
a
that
vicariously
,
model.
study
result,
of
observe
behaviour
PEERS
are
segregated
have
shows
Sociocultural
Draper
It
children
Bobo
doll
behaviour
children
This
adult
“Unit
Bobo
aggressive
masculine)
the
research:
classic
behaviour
(when
(when
gender-consistent
that).
Bandura’
s
through:
tuition
consistent
✪
learning
Supporting
socialization
explained
“Unit
vicarious
displaying
and
leaves
ESSENTIAL
Research
refers
relationships
example,
its
Is
–
What
as
there
mainly
–
clearly
and
to
their
connection
seen
has
period
biological
cultures?
any
in
a
of
caregivers
environment.
child
or
distress,
being
to
for
answer
Harlow’
s
of
attachment?
Is
it
John
of
attachment
across
individuals
later
childhood
have
any
long-term
and
basis
of
(animal
studies)
Bowlby
attachment
includes
(1958)
both
Ainsworth
was
biological
the
researcher
explanation
who
for
set
out
attachment
to
nd
used
rhesus
monkeys
to
investigate
such
In
comfort
and
one
of
his
driven
by
contact
secure
experiments
phenomena
are
See
showed
rather
that
than
attachment
Harlow
versus
(1958),
satisfaction
“Experiment
satisfaction
of
Harlow
of
is
driven
satisfaction
of
by
basic
to
implications
criticized
humans.
on
See
the
for
grounds
of
“Evaluation
of
humans
rst
researcher
human
children.
and
a
series
that
to
In
theory
later
in
life.
attachment
of
papers
in
and
See
theory
for
have
Cognitive
underlie
the
John
human
1970–78)
children
a
attachment
components.
persistent
of
human
formulate
this
cognitive
are
relationships
theory
in
how
known
Mary
Van
Ijzendoorn
basic
children.
further
individual
attachment
as
behaviours
attachment
styles.
are
manifested.
Ainsworth
styles:
secure,
avoidant
and
described
ambivalent.
(1958),
(1970–1978):
attachment
styles
of
and
Kroonenberg
cross-cultural
research
(1988)
and
conducted
showed
that
a
meta-
there
1—contact
experiment
some
1—contact
–
contact
Ainsworth
variations
in
the
prevalence
of
attachment
styles.
needs”.
comfort
rather
variations
See
van
comfort
The
wire
were
stronger
Ijzendoorn
versus
mother
within
and
cultures
Kroonenberg
satisfaction
lactated;
the
than
of
cloth
basic
mother
between
(1988)
needs
did
not.
than
The
simple
the
2—secure
basic
understanding
Attachment
✪
important
being
attachment
of
See
cultures.
Essential
is
biological
of
attachment
These
RESEARCH
“Experiment
is
explore
is
are
comfort
and
as
analysis
needs.
secure
base
mother
base.
he
comfort
secure
caring
a
three
contact
feel
a
behaviours.
These
He
(1958),
many
it
the
for
(in
differences
suitable
had
in
was
demonstrated
Harlow
to
the
of
research”.
Bowlby—the
attachment
supported
presence
monkeys
generalizability
development
life?
the
Harlow
However
,
components
in
Harlow
that
infant
See
Attachment
process?
in
the
research
care.
ethics
such
for
idea
hypothesis”.
child
separated
attachment?
formation
the
necessary
separation
of
experiment
describe
attempted
for
variations
attachment
on
another
hypothesis,
base
reaction
mechanism
there
Biological
used
emotional
Harlow’s
critical
Are
effects
children
Research
and
Does
often
of
partners.
most
the
a
most
form
these.
a
is
special
emotional
mother
.
–
–
is
the
questions
a
between
romantic
Attachment
from
to
individuals,
between
In
questions
Attachment
between
UNDERSTANDING
dependent
variable
was
the
amount
of
time
spent
with
needs.
each
of
the
mothers.
Aim
Results
T
o
investigate
the
role
of
contact
comfort
in
attachment
Results
behaviours
in
infant
rhesus
Participants
8
infant
rhesus
monkeys.
Method
Experiment;
independent
showed
that
infant
monkeys
preferred
to
spend
time
monkeys.
measures
with
the
Even
in
cloth
the
any
food,
use
the
the
time
mother
.
condition
by
wire
the
age
mother
with
the
when
of
20
only
cloth
the
days
to
get
cloth
mother
infant
milk
did
monkeys
and
spent
not
provide
learned
the
rest
to
of
mother
.
design.
Procedure
An
a
articial
light
bulb
dispensing
There
–
were
surrogate
behind
mechanism
two
The
“cloth
and
cotton
infant
monkey
her
mother
making
was
cloth.
monkey
to
was
The
of
cling
to
in
the
built
cloth
built.
and
the
from
a
it
a
was
area.
mother
.
block
of
possible
mother
,
There
milk-
breast
articial
made
the
was
warm,
installed
modications
mother”
her
wood
for
enabling
the
“contact
comfort”.
–
The
to
“wire
the
mother”
cloth
was
mother
in
made
of
everything
wire.
It
except
was
for
identical
providing
comfort.
Infant
cloth
one
of
(four
–
rhesus
and
monkeys
the
them
wire
to
monkeys
The
cloth
spend
in
were
mother
,
time
placed
so
that
with.
in
a
they
There
cage
with
could
were
both
choose
two
the
Figure
7.9
Wire
Harlow
(1958)
and
cloth
surrogate
mothers
which
conditions
each).
mother
lactated;
the
wire
mother
did
not.
Developmental
psychology
171
Fed on cloth mother
Fed on wire mother
Conclusion
24
24
18
18
These
is
yad rep sruoh naeM
yad rep sruoh naeM
Cloth mother
12
Wire mother
6
6-10
Figure
7.10
Harlow
(1958)
11-15
16-20
idea
that
attachment
of
basic
needs.
Since
behaviour
the
cloth
mother
monkeys
preferred
did
by
6
not
the
company
satisfy
something
their
of
basic
needs,
even
else—“contact
attachment
when
must
be
she
driven
comfort”.
21-25
1-5
6-10
Time
Essential
Infants
✪
willing
to
11-15
16-20
21-25
Days
Days of
of age
age
spent
RESEARCH
on
the
cloth
Harlow
and
wire
(1958),
mother
surrogates
experiment
2—secure
a
explore
sense
the
of
security
from
their
caregiver
to
be
to
develop
environment.
leave
base
enriched
development.
were
environment.
hypothesis
alone,
environments
In
three
with
a
is
important
different
wire
mother
for
conditions,
or
with
a
cognitive
the
cloth
monkeys
mother
.
Results
order
the
base
such
understanding
need
Aim
their
take
cognitively
,
For
mother’
s
hypothesis
security
and
is
lap
the
comfort
risks
and
this,
and
from
must
need
be
they
idea
explore
children
explore
that
their
the
to
the
infants
interact
brave
world.
need
caregiver
in
a
with
enough
The
secure
to
Results
were
this
study
actively
be
Monkeys
able
anxious
environment.
infant
made
attachment:
reduced
to
Providing
rhesus
multiple
OF
an
he
play
in
that
normal
and
of
a
placed
in
a
Interacting
or
same
time,
are
two
was
to
the
willing
to
and
were
explore
motionless
at
to
a
monkeys
the
same
clutch
much
the
in
as
baby
mother
conditions
stayed
used
room,
her
.
more
environment.
the
corner
,
crying.
room
to
the
attachment
satisfaction
secure
base
study
of
cannot
of
basic
are
–
be
needs.
important
Applicability
and
human
Ethical
points
of
humans—although
of
are
similar
results
can
in
up
and
in
conditions
delayed
that
cognitive
rhesus
many
still
considerations—Harlow
monkeys
major
to
babies
generalizability
–
development.
there
less
and
the
environment
back
two
in
with
anxiety
the
much
froze
mother
was
the
rushing
other
cloth
she
exploring
the
and
often
the
RESEARCH
contribution
anticipation
comfort
were
with.
HARLOW’S
important
simple
of
to
demonstrated
contact
prerequisites
monkeys
objects
that
When
frequently
screaming
EVALUATION
Harlow
base”.
time
Procedure
containing
showed
“secure
of
sense
order
to
They
At
the
satisfaction
Wire mother
Days of age
In
contradict
to
0
1-5
to
secondary
12
0
In
results
Cloth mother
be
monkeys
respects,
questioned.
brought
were
infant
expected
rhesus
to
cause
development.
criticism.
THEORY
JOHN
BOWLBY—THE
Essential
✪
OF
ATTACHMENT
FOR
HUMAN
(this
understanding
Attachment
components.
become
THEORY
the
includes
The
basis
both
cognitive
for
biological
components
developing
and
of
The
attachment
later
in
component
internal
psychological
life.
self,
John
Bowlby
was
the
rst
psychologist
who
attempted
the
a
theory
theory
was
of
attachment
formulated
in
a
for
series
human
of
children.
papers
from
theory
attachment
includes
two
1958
to
attachment
thought
in
childhood
early
behavioural
pre-programmed
in
response
to
system:
instinctive
certain
this
refers
sequences
Unit
7—Developmental
with
this
refers
to
attachment—beliefs
the
nature
of
one’
s
the
about
the
relationships
that
the
and
internal
becomes
in
working
the
adult
model
foundation
life.
For
is
for
example,
formed
all
if
environmental
psychology
neglected
despite
trying
acquire
a
to
get
the
a
child
parents’
to
he
or
she
can
deep
belief,
“I
am
of
This
fundamental
triggers
other
172
model:
of
and
relationships
consistently
unworthy”.
behaviour
research
components.
attention,
biologically
Lorenz’
s
caregivers.
Bowlby
is
The
working
aspects
caregivers
the
subsequent
this
by
This
1960.
In
inspired
to
with
create
was
imprinting).
cognitive
relationships
CHILDREN
relationships.
belief
will
further
inuence
RESEARCH
Essential
Ainsworth
(1970–1978):
attachment
understanding
Seeking
✪
Mary
contact
comfort
styles
Results
and
establishing
a
“secure
base”
Common
are
common
to
all
human
infants,
but
there
are
base
differences
in
the
way
these
behaviours
are
to
differences
may
be
described
as
infants,
hypothesis,
and
infants
in
were
support
much
of
Harlow’
s
more
active
secure
in
their
manifested.
exploration
These
all
individual
attachment
of
the
playroom
when
their
mother
was
around.
styles.
At
the
same
time,
there
were
individual
differences
in
Aim
children’
s
T
o
investigate
individual
differences
in
attachment
behaviour
human
Ainsworth
summarized
as
behaviour
“attachment
in
that
styles”
of
types
A,
B
and
C.
children.
T
ype
Name
Frequency
Description
A
Insecure
20%
No
avoidant
infants
Participants
Children
aged
12
to
18
of
developed
an
observational
procedure
for
in
infants:
“The
Strange
Situation
Indifferent
to
reunion
No
in
the
B
toys
mother
are
and
the
available.
infant
There
is
are
a
invited
into
one-way
a
mirror
anxiety
room
where
in
room
the
Secure
70%
attachment
infants
of
Separation
which
researchers
register
the
infant’
s
leaves
Positive
mother
and
a
confederate
(a
reaction
“stranger”)
series
of
then
follow
to
the
the
the
but
stranger
acts
when
friendly
when
a
mother
is
near
actions.
C
First
when
behaviour
.
the
scripted
of
reunion
alone,
The
distress
mother
Avoids
through
presence
stranger
Paradigm”.
Procedure
The
separation
assessing
the
attachment
of
distress
attachment
Method
Ainsworth
signs
months.
the
mother
is
alone
with
the
Insecure
10%
ambivalent
infants
of
Intense
resists
attachment
baby
separation
Negative
reaction
contact
anxiety
to
and
reunion:
even
pushes
the
mother
Avoids
the
stranger
away
at
all
times
Then
the
stranger
enters
and
the
room,
approaches
the
talks
to
the
mother
baby
T
able
The
mother
leaves
and
stranger
the
(first
baby
is
alone
with
the
separation)
7.2
Conclusion
Attachment
“secure
The
stranger
leaves
and
(first
The
mother
time
and
The
leaves
then
again,
with
stranger
and
the
7.11
The
leaves
Strange
RESEARCH
and
Essential
✪
mother
same
returns
baby
the
is
alone
for
of
there
associated
common
exist
to
with
human
individual
contact
infants,
differences
patterns—attachment
in
comfort
but
at
and
the
attachment
styles.
some
(second
separation)
mother
returns
Paradigm
Ijzendoorn
and
Kroonenberg
(1988)—cultural
However
,
understanding
Manifestations
time
behaviour
are
reunion)
Situation
Van
the
stranger
(second
Figure
the
reunion)
behaviours
base”
attachment
are
inuenced
by
social
variation
the
factors.
despite
both
same
variations
the
average,
between
in
attachment
there
countries
was
and
considerable
between
samples
from
country
.
Interestingly,
intracultural
country)
even
variation
(that
is,
within
a
Aim
T
o
investigate
how
attachment
styles
vary
was
and
than
cross-cultural
variation
cross-culturally
.
(between
Method
larger
countries).
procedure
Conclusion
A
meta-analysis
of
32
studies
using
Ainsworth’
s
“Strange
Researchers
Situation
Paradigm”
conducted
in
8
Participants
18
studies
Kingdom,
from
the
Sweden,
USA;
other
Japan,
the
explained
studies
from
Netherlands,
Germany
,
China
and
United
Israel.
the
socio-economic
the
observation
styles
were
children
in
of
across
attachment
20%,
B
=
all
styles
70%,
C
=
US
samples
found
in
matched
Ainsworth’
s
the
distribution
research:
A
that
often
manifestations
average
status
the
registered
sociocultural
secure
of
of
variation
the
avoidant
middle-class,
demonstrated
Results
The
that
could
be
caused
by
countries.
in
family
.
and
lower-class
attachment.
variables,
more
are
by
is
ambivalent
professional
attachment
This
We
can
social
whereas
mostly
conclude
inuenced
than
by
attachment
families,
families
indeed
supported
that
by
cultural.
=
10%.
Developmental
psychology
173
7.3
Inuences
7.3.1
Role
SNOITINIFED
Inhibitory
impulse
for
peers
control—the
when
example,
other
of
it
can
to
the
because
it
cognitive
and
ability
lead
inhibiting
children
on
a
to
suppress
to
the
social
grab
provoke
rst
Joint
reaction,
toys
all
play
interaction
the
two.
of
play
includes
is
T
o
with
play
,
peer
but
peer
interaction
The
development
and
peer
interaction,
there
understand
and
from
to
coordinate
attention
to
from
Perspective
taking—the
viewpoint
another
social
of
ability
person;
an
to
understand
important
the
prerequisite
skills
it,
is
develop
not
considerable
one
needs
from
Nedospasova
interaction
and
to
all
overlap
consider
birth
to
children
peer
when
between
how
task
play
of
adolescence.
more
(1985)
overcome
they
for
of
play
simple
progresses
object
through
manipulation
a
and
series
of
interact
them.
elaborate
play
with
rules.
See
ending
demonstrated
cognitive
with
This
an
See
adult
supports
knowledgeable
that
5–7-year-old
egocentrism
who
is
Vygotsky’
s
others
and
Nedospasova
more
easily
scaffolding
ideas
on
zone
of
the
the
the
role
proximal
(1985)
stages
with
The
highly
ability
partner
conict
development.
starting
another
UNDERSTANDING
Development
Not
development
attention—the
objects
of
ESSENTIAL
social
play
negative
impulse
can
and
“Development
of
inuence
of
peers
and
play
on
social
play”.
development
Interaction
The
inuence
of
peers
and
play
on
with
peers
and
play
in
childhood
also
creates
a
cognitive
foundation
for
adjustment
in
the
basic
social
skills,
thus
ensuring
social
development
Piaget
assumed
that
cognitive
development
in
peer
play
is
driven
by
enhanced
the
in
a
process
group
relatable.
Vygotsky
driven
by
interaction
adults
or
on
other
cognitive
of
of
perspective
equal
believed
with
peers.
See
peers
that
so
nd
cognitive
“more
“The
taking,
who
it
will
each
inuence
of
is
others”,
peers
on
social
and
be
Hollos
and
up
isolated
on
same-age
it
they
play
and
Killen
promotes
moral
discussion
with
(1982)
reasoning
adults.
perspectives
children
develop
and
Killen
in
This
comparing
to
found
more
peers
idea
Roff
than
tasks
See
of
of
Damon
1–2
Object
The
focus
manipulation
and
its
play
that
logical
See
or
play
the
of
the
and
child’
s
so
meaning
are
are.
meaning
used
more
means
that
rules
Neither
of
effects
on
no
This
(its
on).
The
behind
longer
enables
behind
attention
shape,
the
is
colour
,
social
the
focus
the
object
tactile
function
object
children
are
of
to
of
A
itself
sensations
the
it
object
peers
and
but
taking
that
(and
from
did
into
and
children
had
a
not
who
little
control
group
perform
account
Cowan
grew
exposure
so
in
well
another
to
how
on
person’
s
(1973)
servicemen
of
poor
peer
analysis
of
clinical
discharged
peer
from
adjustment
adjustment
behaviour
in
in
in
life.
to
had
childhood.
childhood
later
records
service
may
See
have
Roff
This
long-
(1963)
object
attention;
focus
complex
sequences
complex
cognitive
of
is
nor
on
attention,
understand
social
social
rules.
roles
Rules
but
social
the
are
the
focus
regulate
interactions
structures.
7—Developmental
psychology
is
just
a
Children
understand)
Children
instead
its
and
require
long
can
of
scenario
properties
the
spoon
shape.
shiny
are
object
not
with
interested
an
in
interesting
(or
cannot
function.
ignored.
objects.
7.3
Unit
differ
tasks,
social
are
it
the
can
can
Robbers”
They
imitate
spoons.
and
as
Children
or
a
assigned
sentry
,
you
family
object
be
play
of
a
They
are
act
role
can’t
as
is
a
a
and
is
and
no
use
the
sticks
social
longer
important
symbol.
such
out
roles,
the
dinner
imitating
itself
used
games
simply
requirements
are
174
not
retrospective
signs
poor
as
T
able
of
Example
properties
Objects
roles
with
found
Norway
Hollos
military
Description
produces,
Play
inuence
play
T
ype
6–7
did
in
involving
shown
term
Age
Pretend
(1963)
show
that
encourages
reasoning.
“The
peers
effectively
Piaget’
s
relatable
balanced
with
(1982)
Development
3–5
discussion
children
supports
with
more
that
See
(1973)
farms
peers)
solved
social
development”.
Cowan
perspective.
Damon
life.
development”.
be
other
development
knowledgeable
later
interaction
as
“Cops
scene
carefully
socially
move!”).
and
from
a
movie.
following
reinforced
the
(“Y
ou
THE
INFLUENCE
Essential
✪
Both
PEERS
AND
PLAY
ON
COGNITIVE
development
and
is
differed
on
the
peers
more
Vygotsky
driven
kind
by
of
acknowledged
peer
peers
interaction,
that
knowledgeable
DEVELOPMENT
–
understanding
Piaget
or
OF
are
that
but
most
Children
force
cognitive
their
–
views
Peers
bear
important—any
are
a
(1932)
interaction
believed
crucial
for
that
the
cognitive
component
of
development
is
When
perspectives
children
can
incorrect.
on
realize
This
is
a
that
an
particular
their
problem
current
uncomfortable
no
resolve
their
more
the
relatable
inuence.
without
one
discrepancy
.
cognitive
becomes
adults
so
their
Perspectives
than
of
adults
questioning,
assumes
This
the
a
development.
whereas
leading
in
perspectives
a
tend
to
group
of
be
role.
peer
In
perspective
taking
–
to
larger
accepted
ones.
peers
Piaget
try
driving
differ
,
beliefs
may
contrast
Vygotsky
children
in
of
the
which
This
realization.
that,
of
one
Vygotsky
be
to
development
can
coined
be
an
is
partners
the
adult
term
or
a
(1978)
driven
can
by
take
“more
child
believed
that
hierarchical
the
cognitive
interactions
leading
position.
knowledgeable
who
has
more
other”.
expertise
in
something.
Damon
RESEARCH
Essential
✪
and
Killen
(1982)—moral
reasoning
understanding
Constructive
development
discussion
(supports
discussion
with
peers
Procedure
with
Piaget’s
and
peers
promotes
cognitive
approach).
Researchers
and
viewed
measured
offered
a
Damon
and
it
moral
moral
through
dilemma
reasoning
an
as
interview
and
asked
a
in
to
cognitive
which
solve
process
the
child
was
it.
Aim
T
o
compare
children
rates
of
engaging
development
in
discussions
of
moral
with
reasoning
peers
and
Killen’
s
research
compared
moral
reasoning
in:
in
–
children
who
discussed
ethical
–
children
who
discussed
these
dilemmas
with
peers
adults.
dilemmas
with
adults.
Participants
Results
Children
aged
6
to
9
who
discussed
ethical
decision-making
It
scenarios
either
in
groups
of
three
or
with
an
was
found
that
children
who
discussed
the
dilemmas
with
adult.
peers
reached
higher
levels
of
moral
reasoning
faster
.
Method
Conclusion
Experiment;
independent
measures
design.
The
dependent
Comparing
variable
was
measured
through
a
structured
perspectives
among
peers
advances
the
rate
interview.
of
children’
s
cognitive
development.
This
supports
Piaget’
s
approach.
RESEARCH
Nedospasova
more
Essential
✪
Play
a
more
cognitive
cognitive
dolls
knowledgeable
adult
helps
(“This
asked
children
other
egocentrism.
dolls
typically
investigate
cognitive
whether
egocentrism
play
in
can
speed
up
overcoming
dolls
The
aged
5
to
through
play
with
a
was
this
say
again
going
many
to
be
selected
doll
one.
until
you,
brothers
had.
he
and
A
After
he
the
the
the
name
(two).
child
cognitively
this
gave
your
had
is
…”).
After
was
asked
egocentric
child
correct
was
He
this
was
one
how
child
prompted
of
the
many
would
with
the
answer
.
children.
Participants
Children
is
how
brothers
Aim
T
o
egocentrism
other
understanding
with
overcome
(1985)—overcoming
knowledgeable
7.
procedure
was
–
with
graphical
–
verbally
(there
without
any
repeated
two
more
representations
were
three
times:
(circles)
brothers,
instead
their
of
names
dolls
were
…)
prompts.
Method
Experiment;
variable
of
tasks
repeated
(cognitive
including
Inhelder
measures
design.
egocentrism)
the
three
was
The
mountains
Results
dependent
measured
task.
with
See
a
variety
Piaget
and
(1956)
child
(such
as
dolls
and
child
is
a
who
the
likely
to
from
the
who
pass
participated
the
three
in
this
procedure
mountains
task
with
were
little
much
or
no
more
help
experimenter
.
Conclusion
Procedure
The
Children
did
three
not
pass
tests
mountains
told
they
boy).
He
were
was
all
then
for
task)
brothers
asked
cognitive
was
(in
to
egocentrism
presented
this
with
example
identify
with
three
of
of
the
development
study
in
knowledgeable
the
one
Results
the
proximal
support
children
others,
is
as
Vygotsky’
s
driven
well
as
by
view
that
interactions
the
concept
of
cognitive
with
zone
more
of
development.
Developmental
psychology
175
THE
INFLUENCE
Essential
✪
Peer
PEERS
AND
PLAY
ON
SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
self-regulation
understanding
interaction
foundation
has
OF
for
long-term
the
and
play
in
childhood
development
consequences
in
of
basic
terms
of
creates
social
a
with
a
skills
person’s
rules
follow
and
social
adjustment.
the
rules
(for
example,
this
behaviour
.
impulsivity
Perspective
interaction
taking
is
development
theory
of
that
are
because
mind.
However
,
that
peer
See
of
forms
the
and
social
the
as
basis
and
play
process
well
of
theory
also
and
of
of
most
Cowan
The
with
peers
is
for
strictly
while
This
the
a
of
social
role.
pretending
teacher).
allows
sake
a
important
to
Other
children
to
When
for
play
a
children
overcome
performing
social
play
children
to
social
role
reinforce
their
natural
functions.
other
of
in
peer
the
interaction
study
of
on
social
long-term
development
effects
of
poor
is
peer
childhood.
skills
notably
(1973)—social
the
becomes
doctor
,
through
interaction
development
A
important
for
inuence
visible
and
mind”.
promote
a
performing
it
peer
social
empathy
development,
Hollos
as
understanding
Interaction
social
it
in
cognitive
“Empathy
for
RESEARCH
✪
promoted
for
interaction
important
Essential
is
important
while
emerges,
development
skills.
variety
of
in
tasks
children
was
used
example,
conservation
example,
one
task
to
tasks
was
to
from
isolated
measure
with
retell
both
water)
a
story
and
farms
logical
social
accurately
skills
skills
to
a
(for
(for
new
person).
Aim
T
o
investigate
social
skills
in
children
who
grew
up
in
isolated
Results
The
locations.
in
social
the
skills
control
of
these
group.
children
However
,
were
there
not
were
as
developed
no
as
differences
in
Participants
terms
Children
aged
Norway
and
interact
with
7–9
as
a
who
result
grew
had
up
very
on
isolated
few
farms
same-age
of
logical
skills.
in
peers
to
Conclusion
were
compared
to
children
who
grew
up
in
a
Growing
Norwegian
up
in
isolated
locations
with
little
access
to
same-
town.
age
peers
skills,
Method
Quasi-experimental
but
has
not
negative
logical
effects
on
the
development
of
social
skills.
comparison.
Procedure
Children
from
group
children
of
isolated
farms
from
RESEARCH
less
Roff
the
Essential
✪
Poor
compared
to
a
control
locations.
(1963)—peer
adjustment
in
of
early
adjustment
in
–
early
misdemeanour
in
childhood
military
may
socially
the
possible
childhood
roots
for
receiving
from
service
in
the
servicemen
who
of
had
been
discharge
from
who
received
service
for
a
antisocial
with
exemplary
military
records.
clinical
records
in
both
groups
were
analysed
for
(such
inability
signs
referred
to
poor
peer
adjustment
keep
friends,
being
in
early
rated
as
childhood
asocial
by
a
as
teacher).
guidance
Results
clinics
in
childhood.
The
measured
and
percentage
peer
Method
Quasi-experimental
by
clinical
comparison.
retrospective
The
analysis
dependent
of
military
variable
service
was
records
of
adjustment
servicemen
in
who
had
experienced
poor
childhood:
–
54%
of
servicemen
discharged
–
24%
of
servicemen
with
from
exemplary
service
records.
records.
Conclusion
Although
Procedure
The
researcher
compared
two
groups
of
adults:
suggests
Unit
7—Developmental
psychology
causation
a
childhood
176
of
military
.
Participants
Military
conduct
a
The
discharge
disordered—servicemen
non-disordered—servicemen
service
investigate
anti-social
conduct
servicemen.
Aim
dishonorable
and
dishonourable
be
–
T
o
childhood
military
understanding
peer
predictive
were
isolated
possible
and
cannot
link
social
be
inferred
between
behaviour
peer
in
in
this
study
,
adjustment
later
life.
in
it
early
to
7.3.2
Childhood
SNOITINIFED
Critical
period—a
organism
certain
has
to
trauma
specic
time
experience
psychological
during
certain
function
to
and
which
stimuli
be
in
resilience
an
Resilience—the
order
for
a
and
recover
exposure
to
adverse
long-lasting
circumstances
ESSENTIAL
Trauma
trauma
is
to
an
necessarily
a
witness
National
emotionally
a
Fieldman
a
Institute
painful
physical
distressing
of
experience
injury
event
Mental
and
(NIMH
can
Health
which
result
(NIMH),
does
from
not
being
concepts
especially
of
when
trauma
it
and
comes
to
zones
overlap
their
in
in
the
average,
emotionally
effects
on
Vengrober
38%
Gaza
some
experiences,
2015).
deprivation
studying
and
diagnosed
See
The
adapt
of
to
stressful
adverse
situations
circumstances
a
painful
experience
person’
s
that
development
has
and
well-
being
deprivation
the
involve
to
to
effects
UNDERSTANDING
and
According
the
developed
T
rauma—an
Deprivation—continuous
ability
from
(2011)
children
showed
living
in
strip.
While
this
children,
while
being
did
Fieldman
of
not
and
develop
is
PTSD.
Vengrober
that
close
much
higher
exposed
This
PTSD
could
proximity
to
than
the
suggests
to
be
war
the
same
resilience.
(2011)
considerably
,
effects.
Resilience
Resilience
Effects
of
deprivation
in
critical
recover
Experiments
children
acceptable
critical
with
who
animals
suffered
methods
periods
on
and
case
deprivation
to
study
the
studies
seem
to
effects
of
human
be
the
of
studies
of
in
children
their
development.
deprivation
in
human
language
irreversible
some
cases
attributed
are
to
deprivation
Effects
When
has
of
a
of
human
at
to
children
critical
have
period
development.
that.
factors.
The
See
trauma
rather
(1983)
parents.
children
has
than
is
usually
refers
to
used
exceptions
"Case
may
studies
refer
continuous
DEPRIVATION
OF
deprivation,
disorder
overlap.
to
EFFECTS
DEVELOPMENT:
as
Betancourt
be
Leone
from
of
and
in
development
Experiments
as
even
can
a
to
many
ON
the
concept
one-time
exposure
take
CRITICAL
While
to
event,
critical
of
with
who
of
as
adversity
the
(2013)
that
most
the
the
resilience
on
the
resilience
did
not
affect
parents’
studied
many
response
role
Betancourt
et
former
children
traumatic
crucial
poverty
,
forms
The
are
adverse
including
HUMAN
PERIODS
periods
is
psychological
animals
suffered
study
and
believed
functions
case
deprivation
these
deprivation
extent
Specically
,
it
periods
an
has
al
the
effects
similar
,
child
were
to
of
of
resilience
it.
See
social
al
(2013)
soldiers
able
experiences.
of
to
in
in
Sierra
recover
However
,
support
malnutrition
language
trauma
and
deprivation
so
trauma
and
deprivations
Deprivation
development.
It
is
is
in
the
not
and
of
conjunction.
formed
itself
thought
functions),
to
they
overcoming
critical
it
will
can
that
if
never
development
often
cause
studied
is
in
trauma.
psychological
(which
be
deprivation.
later
are
also
a
period
on
function
different
for
formed.
ethical
studies
are
the
reasons,
is
on
there
are
only
two
possible
approaches
damage
the
study
of
effects
of
deprivation
in
critical
periods
on
irreversibly
.
of
development.
human
two
methods
Animal
studies
where
deprivation
is
created
intentionally
.
that
studies
support
the
idea
that
deprivation
in
critical
effects.
periods
large
et
found
extreme
Such
a
of
that
extent
the
–
to
large
research
(PTSD)
later
Effects
much
See
to
to
a
Severity
trauma.
For
used
demonstrated
to
understanding
Deprivation
are
and
(1983)
showed
different
children
situations
circumstances.
DEPRIVATION
considerably
Deprivation
the
stressful
an
However
,
also
stress
circumstances.
✪
to
adverse
shown
children".
post-traumatic
AND
“trauma”
Essential
adapt
of
consequence.
concepts
deprivation
the
to
effects
trauma
common
These
in
language
variety
in
looking
TRAUMA
on
exceptions
highlighted
most
of
deprivation
effect
ability
the
depends
McFarlane
that
the
from
McFarlane
only
deprivation
of
Case
is
periods
on
the
believed
human
timing
that
irreversible
development
of
deprivation
deprivation
effect
on
depend
episodes.
occurring
cognitive
and
in
critical
social
–
prevents
psychological
developed.
However
,
grounds
ethics
of
Case
studies
were
later
of
such
and
studies
are
generalizability
children
discovered
functions
who
and
by
being
criticized
to
underwent
studied
from
on
the
humans.
deprivation
and
scientists.
Developmental
psychology
177
RESEARCH
Essential
Case
✪
The
of
deprivation
language
other
Case
abilities.
because
they
study
case
studies
of
deprivation
in
human
children
understanding
studies
damages
each
Case
of
in
Not
differ
human
all
in
a
case
children
studies
large
number
Researcher
Genie
Curtiss
et
al
have
of
Nature
(1974)
From
of
birth
13
chair
not
she
was
and
deprivation
in
7
up
case
of
Anna
Davis
(1947)
months.
her
room,
was
5.5
to
any
the
She
tied
she
age
was
in
skills
was
to
in
tied
a
to
neglected
being
but
was
she
Her
attention
store
room
seat.
for
She
suffered
not
but
never
discovered,
where
the
social
age
Mason
(1942)
Conned
and
years
still
in
It
is
ever
seem
to
in
compare
suggest
Research
OF
that
form
as
the
on
most
symptoms
✪
of
room
silence.
hand
with
she
a
with
her
at
and
could
the
age
any
with
acquire
highly
signs
at
proper
training,
communication
of
a
antisocial
attachment.
objects
and
people.
she
was
placed
started
was
with
to
able
follow
in
foster
inmates.
conform
some
to
a
other
to
speech
understand
them).
Unfortunately,
10.
rich
ability
at
fully
was
developed
she
and
a
to
directed
she
discovered
developed
6.5
she
died
9
given
interacted
and
example,
When
deaf
spent
However,
and
given
vocabulary
to
produce
training,
(up
to
she
2,500
complex
words)
grammatical
structures.
mother
gestures.
because
a
critical
The
case
on
ON
the
of
development
feelings
Fieldman
and
for
her
in
a
the
seems
mother
.
whole
to
This
(rather
Vengrober
experiences
resilience
and
contradict
could
factors.
For
language
that.
explain
example,
which,
However
,
the
in
different
if
case
studies
missed,
Isabelle’
s
makes
case,
of
it
she
Genie
and
impossible
could
still
ndings.
PTSD
ooding
includes
thoughts,
of
of
emotional
highlighted
PTSD
range
development
DEVELOPMENT:
has
and
differ
Isabelle
trauma
consequence.
disturbing
of
with
HUMAN
effects
they
period
and
reactions
of
to
traumatic
trauma-related
memories,
triggers,
excessive
spontaneous
emotional
arousal
anxiety
.
acute
(2011)—PTSD
understanding
War-related
parents’
is
abilities.
common
as
studies
there
communication
later
RESEARCH
Essential
of
TRAUMA
focused
deprivation)
PTSD
case
that
language
some
EFFECTS
such
to
to
acquire
engage
than
studies
7.4
difcult
Anna
a
mother,
communicate
through
T
able
to
mute
she
of
norms
and
able
show
was
home
she
Isabelle
irreversibly
case
non-verbal
behaviour
When
By
from
did
some
never
Her
instructions
of
period
compare
discovered
and
She
(for
case
critical
to
development
was
her
and
on
language.
a
malnutrition.
The
the
difcult
developed
sounds,
kept
years,
is
interpersonal
malnourished.
exposed
She
it
After
abused,
to
interaction.
The
but
Effects
severely
isolated
and
alone
and
language
consistently
,
deprivation
years
locked
that
this
factors.
neglected
of
shown
demonstrate
in
children
living
in
the
Gaza
strip
Results
are
traumatic
sensitivity
to
contribute
children,
to
the
but
–
resilience
children.
–
PTSD
was
This
is
age
(less
diagnosed
much
higher
than
However
,
in
38%
than
in
of
the
the
children
general
in
the
study
.
population
of
this
1%).
some
children,
while
being
exposed
to
the
Aim
same
T
o
examine
PTSD
symptoms
in
children
exposed
to
did
not
develop
PTSD.
war–
related
experiences,
When
these
resilient
children
were
more
closely
trauma.
investigated,
it
was
found
o
their
mothers
had
o
their
mothers
were
o
such
children
actively
that:
more
social
support
Participants
Children
aged
1.5–5
years
living
near
the
Gaza
during
research
sensitive
to
their
needs
strip.
Method
Qualitative
more
the
interview
sought
maternal
support
(even
itself).
(interviews).
Conclusion
War-related
Procedure
however
,
Children
and
their
mothers
were
interviewed.
and
PTSD
symptoms
were
rated
by
their
and
Unit
7—Developmental
are
obviously
are
resilient.
traumatic
Such
for
children
children;
usually
more
psychology
resilient
parents
(with
a
stronger
social
network
of
mothers.
support).
178
children
Children’
s
have
experiences
experiences
some
Their
make
parents
themselves
are
also
more
emotionally
sensitive
available.
to
their
needs
RESEARCH
Essential
The
✪
McFarlane
(1983)—resilience
in
children
understanding
resilience
of
children
who
lost
homes
in
Australian
bushres
Results
depends
on
the
resilience
of
There
parents.
was
children
PTSD
a
positive
and
their
symptoms
correlation
between
PTSD
symptoms
in
parents.
26
months
after
the
re
were
best
predicted
Aim
by
T
o
investigate
predictors
of
PTSD
symptoms
in
children
such
a
natural
as
separation
from
parents
after
the
re
who
and
survived
variables
continual
maternal
preoccupation
with
the
disaster
.
disaster
.
These
factors
were
even
more
powerful
predictors
of
PTSD
Participants
symptoms
808
children
in
families
who
were
affected
by
themselves
gathered
bushres
were
from
not
in
Australia
actually
teachers
and
in
1983.
directly
the
degree
of
exposure
to
re
or
the
amount
the
of
devastating
than
losses
suffered
by
the
family
.
Children
interviewed;
data
was
Conclusion
When
parents.
parents
behaviour
in
demonstrate
times
of
resilience
stress,
this
and
model
becomes
a
positive
factor
of
Method
resilience
in
children.
Interviews.
Procedure
Interviews
the
took
interviews
symptoms
of
place
both
✪
All
months
after
and
the
parents
re.
were
During
scored
for
PTSD.
RESEARCH
Essential
26
children
Betancourt
et
al
(2013)—resilience
understanding
children
are
in
war-affected
1.
resilient
in
some
Maintaining
way.
throughout
2.
Improving
3.
Stable
4.
Worsening
a
youth
low
the
over
level
study
time
of
of
Sierra
Leone
depression
period
and
anxiety
(41%)
(48%)
Aim
T
o
investigate
exposed
to
resilience
severely
among
children
traumatizing
who
have
reporting
of
severe
difculties
(5%)
been
of
symptoms
(6%).
experiences.
Interviews
also
helped
researchers
identify
the
major
causes
Participants
of
War-affected
baseline).
youths
Most
of
in
the
Sierra
Leone
participants
(aged
were
10–17
former
continuing
and
of
anxiety
and
depression:
at
child
–
loss
–
family
of
a
caregiver
soldiers.
–
Method
symptoms
neglect
community
stigma
(related
to
the
child’
s
past
as
a
was
possible
procedure
soldier).
Longitudinal
points
of
study
(six
years);
three
interviews
at
different
time.
Conclusion
Even
after
the
most
traumatic
experiences
it
Results
for
Researchers
identied
four
groups
of
participants,
many
children
how
they
developed
symptoms
of
depression
and
from
trauma,
at
least
lack
of
social
important
to
give
support
depletes
partially
.
resilience.
Therefore
anxiety
it
over
recover
grouped
However
,
by
to
is
appropriate
care
and
social
support
to
time.
children
7.3.3
Effects
Family
of
income—the
poverty
purely
nancial
on
who
component
of
Parental
investment
that
material
sees
(such
stress
model—the
theoretical
approach
SNOITINIFED
parameters
communication
of
parent-child
styles)
as
the
interaction
major
(such
pathway
variable—a
reduces
the
inuence
another
(the
then
B
is
living
A
that
variable
if
mediating
variable
of
under
variable
one
outcome);
the
Outcome
of
of
affects
B
enhances
(the
poverty
as
of
model—the
aspects
availability
of
of
the
theoretical
home
educational
approach
environment
pathway
of
resources)
as
the
poverty
Pathway
of
poverty—a
income
and
mediating
developmental
variable
outcomes
between
of
poverty
or
predictor)
and
B
affects
between
A
and
poverty—developmental
conditions
experiences.
as
family
Mediating
traumatic
that
major
sees
suffered
development
poverty
Family
have
on
C,
C
consequence
Poverty—the
state
support;
it
multifaceted
range
aspects
of
is
a
of
having
little
or
no
means
phenomenon
of
basic
including
a
of
poverty
Developmental
psychology
179
ESSENTIAL
Outcomes
There
is
no
UNDERSTANDING
and
doubt
development.
research
Can
poverty
number
interest.
reversible?
other
A
pathways
that
For
the
associated
of
of
variables?
are
negative
the
effects
income
timing
of
are
of
be
stresses
educational
of
Gunn
from
the
See
“Effects
of
poverty
on
parental
and
Duncan
outcomes
Outcomes
of
state
and
(1997)
made
a
from
of
poverty
of
poverty
are
poverty
.
the
and
presence
between
family
and
poverty
stress
of
Brooks-
and
model
versus
model”.
research
can
eventual
that
is,
Pathways
variables
that
of
get
of
be
used
that,
in
their
turn,
consequences
poverty
are
affected
affect
the
by
“Outcomes
of
poverty”
of
to
isolate
potentially
the
effects
confounding
of
family
variables
poverty:
longitudinal
statistical
family
income
experiments.
separation
See
of
effects
“Isolating
and
effects
of
living
from
associated
variables”.
mediating
the
state
development
and
with
natural
and
Popli
(2016),
using
statistical
separation
of
effects
in
a
large
longitudinal
study
,
found
that
of
family
See
other
poverty
.
of
and
all
distinction
pathways
Dickerson
variables,
children.
the
investment
methods
associated
between
poverty
“Mediators
the
Philipsen
questions”.
Brooks-Gunn
the
and
episodes
income
in
goods
(Barajas,
development:
T
wo
research
See
development:
Methods
important?
material
opportunities
2007).
delayed
poverty
isolated
poverty
latter
on
effect
questions
the
family
Is
the
poverty
a
follow-up
example,
effect
of
has
“Pathways
income
(as
an
isolated
variable)
affects
cognitive
of
development
both
directly
and
indirectly
through
parental
poverty”.
investment.
There
has
been
debate
regarding
which
of
the
pathways
are
most
signicant
in
predicting
the
children.
The
two
conicting
explanations
are
the
model
et
al
and
stresses
the
parental
patterns
of
investment
parent-child
model.
income
OF
Essential
POVERTY
ON
There
DEVELOPMENT:
RESEARCH
understanding
is
little
doubt
that
a
natural
negatively
that
longitudinal
natural
causes
uctuations
in
social
uctuation
of
development:
behaviours
were
not.
were
See
affected
Costello
et
but
al
internalizing
(2003)
QUESTIONS
poverty
poverty
conducted
demonstrated
while
are
substance
✪
(2016)
The
interaction
behaviours
EFFECTS
(2003)
and
externalizing
former
Popli
family
family
stress
and
development
experiment
of
Dickerson
of
Costello
poverty
See
quality
abuse
in
of
parenting,
the
family
parental
and
education,
criminal
activities
in
the
affects
neighbourhood.
cognitive
and
social
development,
but
there
are
several
–
follow-up
questions
that
are
of
research
Are
the
effects
development
–
Is
it
poverty
(that
is,
family
income)
that
affects
that
goes
–
development,
hand
with
the
key
–
physical
OF
and
other
of
factors
hand
cognitive
of
associated
Is
the
(1997)
summarized
research
on
–
school
emotional
leads
to
malnourishment,
low
Brooks-Gunn
mechanisms
The
OF
and
as
by
poverty
factors
by
standardized
signicant?
behavioural
such
as
outcomes—externalizing
aggression
behaviours
such
or
as
ghting
and
depression
or
anxiety
.
that
“poverty”
in
this
case
means
a
combination
of
tests
(1997)
through
pathways
and
are
that
in
also
described
which
poverty
intermediate
turn
affect
the
common
–
operates.
income
nutrition
the
home
physical
and
all
associated
variables
(such
as
parenting
factors
that
parental
are
development.
–
interactions
side
of
of
spend
(opportunities
the
with
home,
the
for
amount
learning,
of
time
child)
the
parents
psychology
children
strategies,
parental
health
mental
issues,
status
which
such
(this
as
punishment
(statistically
,
have
may
higher
affect
emphasizes
parenting
the
styles,
practices)
parents
with
prevalence
children’
s
a
of
low
mental
behaviour
as
well)
–
neighbourhood
in
poor
conditions
neighbourhoods
unemployment,
7—Developmental
with
parenting
communication
health
environment
to
education).
socio-economic
condition
afford
parental
qualitative
are:
–
Unit
episodes
POVERTY
Duncan
poverty
–
180
social
growth
measured
(pathways)
outcomes,
can
and
achievement
PATHWAYS
affected
of
and
internalizing
and
Unlike
timing
behaviours
family
–
cognitive
with
poverty:
stunted
ability
on
in
Note
–
poverty
reversible?
POVERTY
health—poverty
weight,
factor
Examples
Duncan
outcomes
birth
some
poverty?
OUTCOMES
Brooks-Gunn
or
of
interest.
and
(low-income
with
poor
high
families
levels
schooling).
of
live
crime
and
MEDIATORS
STRESS
There
is
poverty
in
this
BETWEEN
MODEL
a
debate
are
the
debate
POVERTY
VERSUS
regarding
deciding
(Barajas,
THE
which
factors.
Philipsen
AND
DELAYED
PARENTAL
of
the
There
and
pathways
are
DEVELOPMENT—THE
INVESTMENT
two
of
communication
notable
Brooks-Gunn
sides
with
family
pathways
family
stress
of
theory
poverty
interpersonal
ISOLATING
the
that
ones
interactions,
EFFECTS
ASSOCIATED
Essential
are
claims
OF
the
leading
associated
such
as
FAMIL
Y
with
investment
model
pathways
are
nutrition,
educational
styles,
exposure
to
FROM
statistical
within-
parenting
INCOME
strategies
and
the
amount
of
time
spent
children.
2007).
The
The
FAMIL
Y
MODEL
variables
VARIABLES
the
ones
the
of
same
that
the
with
opportunities,
educational
separation
at
claims
associated
most
important
material
enriched
goods:
environments,
experiences.
effects,
you
can
also
use
multiple
time.
understanding
C
✪
T
o
isolate
the
components
statistical
of
effects
poverty
,
separation
of
of
family
two
income
methods
effects
and
from
are
other
widely
natural
used:
longitudinal
1
experiments.
Statistical
separation
of
effects
is
the
use
of
complex
2
statistical
of
one
methods
variable.
correlations
illustrated
with
you
income),
B
just
of
above
measure
confounded
estimate
the
by
area
child),
income
effect
1.
This
RESEARCH
of
Y
ou
is
need
understanding
Family
–
complex
effect
income
on
(as
can
of
be
want
of
and
indirect
effects
The
indirect
effect
Figure
that
nd
A
and
subtract
out
the
development
C,
If
area
Popli
you
this
possible.
and
will
Venn
diagram
1
and
Using
income
called
natural
variables)
has
3
a
variable)
has
showing
the
statistical
is
in
years
both
direct
through
uctuations
the
was
parents.
sweep
the
separation
of
in
development
is
If
research
income
children.
that
really
some
studies
uctuation
of
nature”
poverty
family
when
years
old
collected
assess
“the
observe
Cohort
in
Standardized
to
are
occurring
of
They
are
manipulates
affects
correspondence
and
uctuations
in
development.
study:
5
it
should
children’
s
old,
experiments
naturally
variable.
we
Millennium
sweep
development.
income
of
a
because
independent
between
UK
how
affects
development,
rates
(2016)—the
longitudinal
investigate
family
the
be
development.
cognitive
family
7.12
Natural
used
isolated
on
of
(family
education.
associated
cognitive
an
to
cognitive
to
A
(cognitive
mathematically
(as
–
on
C
parental
–
negative
you
Dickerson
a
patterns
idea
variables:
and
between
Essential
Poverty
The
effect
effects
three
and
correlation
area
2.
the
analysing
variables.
education)
family
the
by
isolate
diagram.
measured
the
of
achieved
multiple
Venn
have
effect
and
a
mathematically
is
(parental
development
over
This
between
Suppose
“pure”
to
Study
participants
and
7
years
face-to-face
cognitive
cognitive
were
old.
9
months
Information
interviews
tests
were
development
of
with
also
the
old,
at
each
the
used
at
each
child.
parental
Results
investment.
Before
statistical
separation
of
effects:
Aim
–
T
o
investigate
associated
correlations
with
poverty
between
and
multiple
cognitive
children
who
experienced
poverty
had
lower
scores
on
variables
standardized
cognitive
the
poverty
tests
development.
–
timing
recent
of
episodes
of
episodes
poverty
was
had
the
important—the
least
impact,
most
whereas
Participants
being
The
researchers
used
data
from
the
UK
Millennium
born
cognitive
Study
,
or
a
sample
of
19,000
children
born
in
the
UK
into
poverty
had
the
largest
impact
on
Cohort
in
development.
2000
After
2001.
–
statistical
family
separation
income
had
an
of
effects:
effect
on
cognitive
test
scores
over
Method
and
Longitudinal
study
.
Interviews
and
standardized
above
were
effects
used
was
to
used
collect
to
data.
analyse
the
Statistical
collected
could
be
explained
by
other
variables
cognitive
associated
tests
what
separation
with
poverty
(this
shows
the
direct
effect
of
of
family
income
at
the
same
in
predicting
on
cognitive
development)
data.
–
time,
a
number
cognitive
of
pathways
development
(this
were
signicant
shows
the
Procedure
The
study
tested
at
was
the
conducted
same
points
in
of
“sweeps”:
time.
Four
all
participants
such
sweeps
indirect
effect
more
line
of
family
income).
These
pathways
were
were
in
with
the
parental
investment
model
than
were
Developmental
psychology
181
the
family
stress
opportunities
important
parents
than
and
model,
and
that
resources
is,
providing
was
interpersonal
shown
educational
to
interaction
be
Conclusion
more
–
between
Poverty
has
a
development
children.
stronger
–
Family
the
detrimental
effect
of
The
children.
on
the
earlier
it
cognitive
occurs,
the
effect.
income
(isolated
from
other
variables)
affects
Parental
cognitive
development
both
directly
and
indirectly
.
investment
–
(indirect
The
indirect
effect
is
better
explained
by
the
parental
effect)
investment
model
than
the
family
stress
model.
Cognitive
Family
income
development
(direct
Figure
7.13
Direct
and
RESEARCH
Essential
Family
✪
indirect
effect)
effects
Costello
et
of
al
family
income
(2003)—Great
Smoky
understanding
income
affects
Mountains
Results
externalizing
behaviours
of
children
Before
in
the
family
but
not
internalizing
behaviours
(over
and
the
family
characteristics
associated
with
casino
opened,
the
poor
children
(the
rst
two
above
groups)
other
study
had
more
psychiatric
symptoms
than
the
never
the
psychiatric
symptoms
the
level
poor
poverty).
group.
Aim
T
o
After
investigate
the
family
on
the
effects
social
of
the
changing
development
of
poverty
status
of
poor
the
casino
children
opened,
dropped
to
of
never
poor
of
the
ex-
children.
children.
However
,
(such
as
this
was
only
aggression
or
true
for
conduct
externalizing
disorder).
behaviours
Internalizing
Participants
behaviours
1,500
rural
children
aged
9–13
years.
One
quarter
of
(such
as
anxiety
and
depression)
were
not
the
affected.
sample
were
Native
American,
the
rest
predominantly
white
American.
Levels
of
psychiatric
remained
symptoms
among
the
persistently
poor
high.
Method
Natural
longitudinal
Incidence
experiment.
of
externalizing
behaviours
Procedure
Children
Group
were
given
annual
psychiatric
assessments
Before
Ex-poor
eight
years.
The
naturally
occurring
variable
was
a
opened
halfway
family
on
the
through
incomes
Indian
the
in
study
every
reservation.
This
and
a
natural
boost
American
family
.
The
Native
it
gave
income
American
–
–
–
changed
families.
the
ex-poor
out
of
the
persistently
of
182
(14%)
poverty
family
status
groups
(14%)—used
of
Never
to
some
of
the
be
the
poor
never
(53%)—used
poor
(32%)
group
before
but
moved
to
be
poor
and
Since
family
characteristics
interaction
during
the
nancial
(32%).
were
and
compared
after
the
7—Developmental
in
these
casino
Low
High
High
Low
Low
7.5
three
opening.
psychology
or
course
externalizing
symptoms
participants
group
High
Conclusion
poor
child
poor
(53%)
Native
were:
to
poor
increase
poverty
poor
Unit
The
group
remained
Psychiatric
the
casino
happened
T
able
of
After
casino
Persistently
that
casino
over
of
the
symptoms
status.
social
We
effect
on
other
associated
(such
parental
study
,
may
may
as
mental
the
be
groups
variables.
of
health)
of
did
observed
attributed
conclude
development
patterns
that
change
reduction
to
family
children
parent-
not
over
the
of
changing
income
and
has
above
an
the
8
RESEARCH
METHODS
IN
PSYCHOLOGY
T
opics
8.1
Quantitative
8.2
Overarching
and
generalizability
8.3
EXAM
The
an
In
a
and
paper
2
addition,
stimulus
the
Question
discipline
Describe
3.
Suggest
2
the
an
[6
Describe
taken
8.4
Correlational
8.5
Qualitative
8.6
Specic
8.7
Identifying
Question
3
three
of
based
or
this
used
the
ethical
account
(consists
Discuss
the
2.
Discuss
how
a
3.
Discuss
how
the
on
for
on
The
IB
psychology
considerations
research
you
to
stimulus
with
they
living
understand
research
study
syllabus.
as
methods
may
be
This
apply
total
of
considerations
when
one
possibility
number
In
this
of
sampling,
unit
evaluate
applying
of
of
research
research
methods:
Overview
method
each
and
and
ethics
quantitative,
we
the
in
outline
the
that
two
study
.
research
characteristics
[3
and
exam
questions
topic.
non-human
every
in
that
particular
in
paper
1
Since
psychology
is
subjects,
knowledge
of
topic.
paper
qualitative
3.
or
In
a
this
mix
paper
of
the
you
will
be
two.
Y
ou
will
given
be
of
the
method.
[3
marks]
marks]
method
giving
one
reason
for
your
choice.
[3
marks]
questions)
were
in
applied
reporting
the
ndings
following
could
researcher
in
ensure
the
in
the
study
and
explain
if
further
ethical
considerations
could
be
the
of
results
the
and
study
.
explain
[6
additional
of
will
marks
cover
for
in
all
paper
quantitative
generalizability
,
research
this
and
credibility
topics
of
the
Quantitative
Aim
Nomothetic
These
rules
groups
of
is
the
could
the
ndings
results
avoid
of
bias.
bias.
syllabus,
This
the
[9
and
and
by
methods
of
the
study
of
study
.
are
HL
students
research
can
to
be
[9
Behavioural
Numbers
Objectivity
More
be
[9
marks]
the
Diploma
Programme
Psychology
guide)
in
psychology
used
by
all
question
qualitative
as
well
students
1
and
to
as
the
overarching
understand
question
research:
3
in
and
paper
concepts
critically
3.
Comparison
Qualitative
approach:
may
be
derive
applied
manifestations
universally
to
the
applicable
behaviour
of
rules.
large
Idiographic
case
or
law,
but
(operationalizations)
approach:
it
is
deeper
understood
Human
in-depth
phenomenon.
more
understanding
Obtained
(richer)
in
knowledge
the
sense
is
that
of
a
not
a
particular
a
universal
particular
case
holistically
.
experiences,
interpretations,
meanings
T
exts
objective
studied
could
marks]
credible.
answer
is
Data
that
marks]
knowledge
individuals.
Focus
considerations
24.
qualitative
and
ethical
marks]
questions)
that
study
Quantitative
T
ypes
a
material.
generalizing/transferring
researcher
Parameter
(the
reality).
researcher
is
eliminated
from
the
More
subjective
reality).
The
a
of
“tool
(the
researcher
researcher
is
an
is
included
integral
part
in
of
the
the
studied
procedure
and
measurement”.
Observation
Experiment
Quasi-experiment
Interview
Correlational
Focus
study
Case
T
able
the
means
to
human
(From
8.1
qualitative
sub-questions)
following
considerations
the
based
study
.
and
additional
of
is
in
ethical
assessed
on
used
or
essential
compulsory
method
one
ethical
is
research
method
sampling
1.
The
studies
research
marks]
the
into
of
ethics
formally
a
questions
(consists
applied.
be
themes
methods
knowledge
and
will
alternative
the
overarching
which
research
the
Describe
2.
bias
research
describing
(consists
2.
in
students
following
1
two
to
methodology
HL
Identify
Question
are
refer
material
1.
1.
ethics
research
asked
Comparison
credibility
,
experiment
may
empirical
both
and
research:
Sampling,
TIP
Research
and
qualitative
concepts:
group
study
8.1
Research
methods
in
psychology
183
8.2
Overarching
concepts:
generalizability
THE
Four
and
make
applicable
concepts
a
to
all
research
very
researchers.
Sometimes
each
the
differently
approach
to
used
about
refer
of
“credibility”
validity”
in
experimental
to
may
to
its
describe
quality
.
methods,
by
but
qualitative
different
idea
qualitative
are
judgment
approached
in
bias
the
be
sets
of
same
and
they
and
as
be
concepts
can
may
concept.
to
Credibility
research
be
For
trusted
we
be
have
Bias
quantitative
terms
referred
research
a
The
this
the
example,
of
it
the
“trustworthiness”
so
in
manifested
to
is
important
to
clearly
overarching
understand
concepts
and
the
both
way
experimental,
correlational
and
the
to
which
reality
.
believe
of
A
that
credibility
.
introduced
to
procedure,
the
results
study
its
It
of
is
the
ndings
ndings
in
behaviour
by
the
of
study
credible
are
the
can
when
true.
characterizes
mistakes
unnatural
various
researcher
,
process
of
participants,
and
on.
Generalizability
four
in
extent
ipside
research
study
can
be
is
the
extent
applied
to
beyond
which
the
the
results
sample
and
of
the
the
used
in
the
study
itself.
The
way
qualitative
they
and
are
reasons
the
settings
meaning
the
reect
measurement,
“internal
studies.
reason,
is
is
to
distortions
used
the
For
credibility,
CONCEPTS
overarching
study
are
and
Sampling,
quantitative
researchers
approach
generalizability
is
qualitative
distinctly
different.
research.
–
A
sample
research
these
is
the
study
.
group
of
individuals
Sampling
individuals
for
is
the
taking
process
part
of
in
T
able
the
The
an
unit
will
overview
sampling,
of
the
correlational
be
main
concepts
generalizability
,
devoted
and
to
qualitative
unpacking
used
credibility
to
and
research.
the
ideas
in
bias
The
this
to
be
example,
validity”
study
able
while
to
in
the
stimulus
identify
the
characterizing
because
that
is
only
material
research
the
in
paper
method
“credibility”
applicable
in
3
that
of
a
may
was
be
qualitative
experimental
quantitative,
used
and
select
research
qualitative
or
terminology
study
,
it
would
a
mix
of
the
appropriate
be
incorrect
to
to
two.
that
use
That
is
concepts
Sampling
Experimental
Random
studies
the
“internal
term
Same
as
Opportunity
experimental
studies
Quota
sampling
Purposive
sampling
Theoretical
sampling
Snowball
sampling
sampling
sampling
Convenience
Generalizability
External
Population
validity
–
Ecological
–
Population
Construct
validity
validity
validity
generalization
Construct
Ways
improve
confounding
(eliminating
in
all
generalization
validity
this:
controlling
keeping
Ways
to
reliable
variables
or
Credibility/trustworthiness
Credibility
validity
to
generalization
validity
Theoretical
Internal
sampling
Sample-to-population
Case-to-case
Credibility
research
studies
sampling
Self-selected
you
For
research
Correlational
sampling
Stratied
why
method.
Qualitative
Overarching
constant
improve
ways
variables,
this:
the
Ways
using
measure
avoiding
interpreting
conditions)
to
biases
to
improve
triangulation,
the
rapport,
in
iterative
reexivity
,
results
this:
establishing
Bias
Threats
to
internal
credibility
validity:
On
of
the
level
variables:
of
Participant
measurement
depends
on
the
checks,
acquiescence
history
–
social
–
maturation
–
dominant
–
testing
–
sensitivity
–
instrumentation
–
regression
selection
–
method
On
effect
the
of
measurement
level
of
interpretation
of
ndings:
–
curvilinear
–
the
desirability
–
–
–
184
Unit
to
experimental
experimenter
demand
the
mean
mortality
methods
in
spurious
variable
bias:
problem
–
conrmation
–
leading
bias
–
question
order
–
sampling
bias
–
biased
correlations
question
bias
bias
bias
characteristics
concepts
8—Research
–
third
respondent
relationships
Researcher
Overarching
bias:
–
–
psychology
a
questioning,
descriptions
8.2
of
table.
research.
Quantitative
T
able
in
rest
TIP
research
need
is
experimental,
participation.
this
EXAM
8.2
characterize
recruiting
reporting
thick
8.3
The
experiment
CONSTRUCTS
Quantitative
is
any
characteristic
quantied.
distinction
–
A
In
that
between
is
The
simplest
need
variable
other
The
by
(IV)
and
change
this
in
be
make
the
score
one
for
anxiety
.
She
Another
is
the
We
splits
variable
it
in
her
After
hearing
many
words
Control
T
o
confounding
that
–
ensure
to
that
is
while
One
is
in
the
manipulated
that
the
potential
the
that
the
Compare
results
T
able
than
of
the
the
into
list
DV
,
it
as
of
other
in
the
is
and
For
a
to
at
the
example,
amount
of
something
important;
bloodstream;
questionnaire,
will
the
capture
same
a
so
in
a
the
on.
essence
be
can
self-report
and
the
time
anxiety
dgeting
clearly
A
of
good
the
measurable.
Her
for
recall
and
variable
DV
number
both
in
that
One
group
are
is
does
given
words
required
researcher
length
hypothesis
than
lists
to
a
list
(such
recall
is
it
variables
the
of
is
IV
and
that
the
conducting
affects
that
lists
longer
variable
the
other
can
DV
interfere
are
called
variables
a
word
dependent
four-syllable
groups,
two
words
are
it
affect
will
groups.
the
the
used
are
them
number
recalled
in
can
results
familiar
results
groups
affect
If
groups
eliminated
perfectly
the
both
correctly
two
either
commonly
affect
that
the
are
may
words
may
sure
the
of
use
that
make
between
participants
they
of
participants
variables
variable
all
groups.
if
These
between
is
short-term
of
shorter
words.
memory
Her
a
simple
memory
words
IV
recall.
is
T
o
will
word
test
experiment
of
be
word
easier
length
the
lists.
to
and
her
hypothesis,
following.
consisting
as
in
of
one-syllable
words
(such
as
“rice”).
“coincidence”).
the
right
order
,
and
the
researcher
measures
how
correctly
.
differences
that
in
two
variables.
relationship
example,
see
the
inuences
consisting
words,
recalled
any
English
same
a
confounding
researchers
Analyse
list
confounding
Another
the
given
they
ensuring
not
–
in
for
anxiety
and
confounding
changes
ensure
participants
potential
by
an
For
the
terms
controlled.
change
the
(DV),
variable
need
the
group
DV
variables
cortisol
on
as
waiting
operationalization
independent
are
dependent
control
the
the
of
construct
expressing
variable
variables
causes
to
Manipulate
Measure
while
level
variable,
behaviour
.
operationalized
chair
she
IV
observable
be
dened
means
includes
The
that
of
operationalizations.
memory
,
dependent
variable
need
to
variable
and
EXPERIMENT
important
IV
we
important
and
A
registered
operationalized
manipulation.
the
reason
is
construct
one
experimenter
.
of
it
attraction,
to
a
variables.
theoretically
THE
independent
result
this,
experiment
potentially
the
this
IN
with
objectively
constructs
any
Operationalizing
VARIABLES
is
to
violence,
Constructs
VARIABLES
operates
relation
construct
example,
–
AND
research
the
is
in
be
or
is
attributed
kept
participants’
with
all
everyday
in
equally,
of
the
words
IV
both
they
(and
nothing
else),
researchers
ensure
groups.
with
exclude
the
words.
participants
Researchers
whose
native
eliminate
it
language
is
language.
noise
same
which
will
correctly
short-word
the
in
familiarity
words:
background
tested
to
constant
group,
in
the
room
not
at
One
the
compromise
recalled
the
room.
and
in
the
cannot
same
the
of
the
it
entirely,
day.
If
noise
but
is
comparison.
long-word
experimental
eliminate
time
group
hypothesis
is
will
signicantly
be
smaller
supported.
8.3
Confounding
variables
Controlled
/
eliminated
Independent
variable
Dependent
(IV)
variable
Controlled
/
(DV)
eliminated
Confounding
variables
Figure
8.1
A
simple
SAMPLING
The
target
ndings
of
IN
experiment
QUANTITATIVE
population
the
study
is
are
the
group
RESEARCH
of
expected
to
of
that
people
be
to
which
generalized.
the
We
be
The
sample
is
the
group
people
take
part
in
need
to
It
is
a
sub-set
of
the
target
sure
that
results
of
quantitative
research
can
be
possible,
the
sample
must
be
representative
of
the
target
the
population.
experiment.
be
generalized from the sample to the target population. For this to
A
sample
is
said
to
be
representative
if
it
reects
population.
all
of
the
essential
characteristics
Research
of
the
target
methods
in
population.
psychology
185
SAMPLING
Several
TECHNIQUES
sampling
resources
and
techniques
the
Sampling
nature
of
IN
can
the
QUANTITATIVE
be
used
target
in
RESEARCH
quantitative
research.
The
choice
depends
on
the
aim
of
the
research,
available
population.
Explanation
Advantages
Disadvantages
technique
Random
Create
sampling
target
a
sub-set.
target
list
of
This
way
population
becoming
part
Stratied
First
sampling
characteristics
the
decide
study
of
example,
way
the
that
the
sample.
list
the
equal
of
age
of
(such
and
so
target
same
been
sample
in
the
It
sufcient,
certain
characteristics
that
are
is
practically
truly
even
the
fairly
random
target
(opportunity)
available,
sampling
psychology
participants
for
example,
students
psychological
researchers
to
control
Requires
of
some
characteristics
without
key
relying
harder
on
out
might
be
dispersed.
more
to
carry
example,
knowledge
of
the
about
target
population;
implement.
chance.
Useful
when
population
about
which
essential
Then
in
are
a
proportions
in
not
the
researcher
is
characteristics
and
when
the
certain
are
sample
sizes
large.
in
the
of
the
that
who
research
are
Useful
easily
to
in
be
as
not
participate
earn
credit
when
limited.
undergraduate
that
to
education
the
is
A
quick
common
other
and
easy
participants
while
Anyone
who
to
time
wide
having
example,
sample.
primary
limited
is
very
bias.
are
sometimes
most
the
study
,
wider
because
example,
typically
experimental
culture,
For
opportunity
familiar
procedures
can
even
which
the
with
and
guess
does
of
psychology
not
the
aim
apply
to
of
the
population.
of
purpose
in
a
pilot
to
recruit
study).
advertisements.
the
of
from
samples
students
some
sense
for
Generalization
sampling
are
characteristics.
example,
newspaper
in
or
generalization
the
(for
through
is
example,
be
Recruiting
participate
For
are
may
people
independent
when
not
that
memory
sampling
included
example,
or
there
of
Self-selected
wants
for
are
study
research
volunteers,
may
useful
ndings
of
believe
different.
and
resources
studies,
properties
people
Also
nancial
some
reasons
basic
course.
In
perception
many
method
at
the
coverage
different
Representativeness
are
same
limited.
motivated
(for
people
from
read
a
A
bigger
incentives
the
generalization
volunteer
average
population,
could
for
and
typical
than
volunteers
newspapers).
also
their
is
more
participant
and
pursue
monetary
participation.
8.4
Random
1
population
geographically
sample.
to
for
population.
Recruiting
T
able
impossible
sampling,
representativeness
these
observed
is
be
represented
characteristics
age,
but
size
may
unexpected
Allows
on).
of
randomly
,
the
of
that
as
distribution).
has
the
chance
the
researchers
a
essential
reect
the
select
population
distribution
keeps
Convenience
part
an
If
the
member
has
to
in
as
of
randomly
every
participants
sample
target
and
language
the
characteristics
recruit
members
the
has
occupation,
(for
of
on
sample
Then
all
population
2
3
sampling
Stratified
1
10
12
2
4
6
sampling
4
2
5
2
10
8
5
Sample
Sample
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
7
8
11
3
5
9
10
12
Population
Figure
8.2
EXAM
One
of
the
of
sampling
The
to
the
sampling
of
ndings
was
of
can
the
sampling
question
as
1
in
paper
quantitative
strategies
were
used
3
asks:
(either
an
(random,
“Describe
experiment
stratied,
the
or
sampling
a
method
correlational
convenience,
used
study),
self-selected)
in
the
study".
then
you
will
and
describe
If
you
need
how
to
have
determine
exactly
the
implemented.
strategy
also
use
study”.
(see
population
Unit
in
study
sampling
you
population
research:
186
research
strategy
choice
the
stratied
sub-questions
the
quantitative,
the
and
TIP
identied
which
Random
validity
,
8.2
links
to
the
information
However
,
T
able
8—Research
also
this
near
note
the
ecological
methods
that
of
generalization,
answering
the
concept
beginning
validity
,
in
idea
in
of
this
construct
psychology
the
of
so
question
if
the
generalizability
unit).
validity
.
There
research
“Discuss
are
is
the
not
three
study
in
possibility
limited
aspects
of
to
the
of
stimulus
material
is
generalizing/transferring
generalizing
generalizability
from
in
the
sample
quantitative
EXPERIMENTAL
There
how
are
the
three
DESIGNS
types
of
independent
INDEPENDENT
experimental
variable
is
design,
depending
on
manipulated:
MEASURES
–
independent
–
matched
pairs
measures
–
repeated
measures.
DESIGN
Random
In
the
independent
measures
design,
the
independent
assignment
variable
is
manipulated
into
different
groups.
The
rationale
behind
by
randomly
random
group
allocating
participants
allocation
is
that
all
Treatment
group
Compare
Follow-up
results
potential
confounding
variables
cancel
each
other
out.
Patients
Figure
MATCHED
Matched
but
PAIRS
pairs
instead
matching
to
is
similar
completely
form
the
to
independent
random
allocation,
measures,
researchers
and
use
groups.
of
for
participants
are
them
in
example,
and
equivalent
into
similar
it
in
that
be
we
especially
terms
groups
age
is
Independent
allocate
all
and
of
hope
two
important
age.
distributions,
need
We
that
but
could
groups
to
measures
design
the
that
are
the
other
and
been
two
carry
on
allocated.
groups
are
characteristics
in
this
This
way
way
equivalent
are
kept
until
the
participants
researcher
in
terms
of
may
age,
random.
Rank par ticipants
they
allocate
allocation
groups
that
all
them,
have
of
randomly
random
if
us
ages
sure
while
Suppose,
8.3
group
DESIGN
design
of
Control
will
not
1
Highest
result
2
large,
3
chances
are
that
random
allocation
will
create
bias,
and
we
4
don’t
want
to
take
the
chance
of
that
Measure
happening.
5
Randomly allocate
6
into groups
matching
First
all
participants
of
the
study
are
assessed
on
the
matching
variable
variable
(we
gather
information
on
the
participants’
7
ages).
8
Then
all
participants
are
ranked
according
to
the
matching
9
variable
and
allocated
randomly
into
groups
pairwise
as
we
Lowest
move
the
along
two
into
the
the
groups,
REPEATED
The
same
are
also
An
example
music
of
the
are
called
to
lists
After
they
words
and
An
correctly
order
second
rst
trial.
ensure
needs
to
the
order
with
The
to
will
take
randomly
youngest
is
Figure
are
to
two
(or
compared.
This
way
themselves,
so
Matched
pairs
design
these
more)
music”
then
then
comparison
designs
groups
of
“no
music”
“music”
is
still
in
made
in
the
the
rst
second
between
group,
group.
and
“no
Note
that
conditions,
not
between
participants.
designs.
experiment
when
there
is
background
be
given
and
recall
it,
background
then
a
list
that
music.
of
another
music.
be
In
words
(but
The
compared
Condition 1
Condition 2
Group 1
Silence
Music
Group 2
Music
Silence
compares
background
no
will
8.4
participants
“music”
exposed
is
of
order
the
order
be
by
due
repeated
effect
the
this
in
silence.
similar)
number
in
to
effects
either
are
trials
in
forms
the
two
group
measures
occurs
fact
of
when
the
list
of
music
practice
In
this
groups
is
design
results
participation
controlled,
counterbalancing.
randomly
of
two
them
rst
affected
may
that
researcher
list
researcher
conditions.
are
use
next
simple
there
the
allocate
DESIGN
words
limitation
This
a
recalled
effect.
trial
be
may
the
given
inherent
the
T
o
hear
no-music
and
participants
of
when
participants
is
the
conditions
would
versus
example,
“within-subject”
recall
words
take
compared
study
of
the
MEASURES
and
participants
In
participants
then
group
conditions
ability
ranks.
youngest
10
or
reversed,
the
is compared to
researcher
the
participants,
for
the
the
fatigue.
technique
of
in
is
of
and
Figure
8.5
Repeated
measures
design
with
counterbalancing
example,
Research
methods
in
psychology
187
Design
Advantages
Disadvantages
How
to
overcome
the
disadvantages
Independent
measures
Can
have
multiple
Participants
condition,
only
so
Participant
groups.
take
there
part
are
no
in
are
one
that
order
will
effects.
For
Matched
pairs
the
same
difcult
for
out
true
the
Useful
reason
aim
when
particularly
keep
of
the
is
the
More
is
not
large
that
up
the
and
in
random
sample
there
is
a
allocation
producing
groups
of
the
the
When
these
to
wants
be
are
is
existing
oranges).
will
it
is
into
groups
likely
that
individual
will
cancel
the
groups
each
on
groups
are
is
large
pre-
differences
other
out
average
and
will
be
measured
to
variables
know
when
what
is
there
variable
researcher
likely
the
matching
need
rst.
the
particularly
Keeping
implement
experiment
simple:
easier
to
is
matching
and
one
two
implement
groups.
variables
to
be
confounding.
chance
that
to
matching
Theory-driven:
all
size
and
enough,
groups
equivalent
and
allocation
random
likely
study
apples
difcult
needs
when
in
is
completely
start
because
groups.
Useful
the
be
since
it
equivalent.
certain
and
constant
participants
not
(comparing
gure
people,
study
.
about
variables
them
at
more
to
researcher
careful
confounding
to
it
participants
variability:
different
end
are
not
equivalent.
Repeated
measures
Participant
problem
compared
This
also
sizes
to
be
in
is
not
Order
a
participants
that
smaller
than
the
one
increases
sample
(there
effects:
Participants
are
themselves.
means
can
“noise”
variability
because
is
will
less
fatigue
take
condition,
the
gure
or
part
in
the
is
that
true
of
8.5
Advantages
CREDIBILITY
The
quality
internal
credibility
validity
near
of
and
and
AND
the
the
start
is
of
Internal
while
by
validity
external
generalizability
this
experimental
characterized
validity
.
experiment,
characterize
of
GENERALIZABILITY
experiments
external
of
disadvantages
of
IN
THE
their
and
validity
EXPERIMENT:
construct,
a
T
able
Ecological
8.2
can
or
characteristic
of
the
be
quality
terms
of
Operationalizations
observable
behaviour
.
For
express
example,
construct
are
you
at
and
the
a
response
moment?”
operationalization.
a
construct
of
an
is
is
operationalization
construct.
In
overarching
Moving
always
experiment
this
a
bit
high
of
if
of
the
a
a
question
scale
from
of
an
from
leap
The
is
sufcient
construct
to
the
to
5
justied
validity
is
a
of
to
types
external
other
people
and
other
of
relates
if
their
on
how
representative
is.
It
refers
from
depends
In
to
the
on
laboratory
the
extent
to
experiment
how
the
sample
which
ndings
other
settings
to
articial
experiments
in
situations
that
do
daily
it
lives,
less
and
this
can
natural.
The
more
the
experimental
participants
not
change
normally
their
closely
procedure
approximates
real-life
ecological
validity
experiment.
Internal
the
quality
the
to
validity
of
concepts,
the
Internal
characterizes
been
generalizability
There
an
of
the
it
relates
validity
the
in
the
DV
.
is
In
a
characteristic
experiment.
is
controlled
change
situations.
validity
themselves
often
occur
the
behaviour
,
experimental
situations,
the
higher
the
to
IV
the
high
and
other
terms
are
the
the
of
methodological
overarching
the
confounding
quite
something
words,
of
of
credibility
when
we
(not
In
certain
else)
internal
research
study
.
variables
have
that
that
validity
it
was
caused
links
the
the
change
directly
to
of
bias—the
ndings
depends
to
validity
theory
.
characteristic
VALIDITY
is
in
External
CBA).
its
and
coverage
validity
of
BAC,
angry
is
construct
generalizability—it
ndings
“How
1
groups
ACB,
constructs
anger
operationalization
leap.
this
provides
sense,
concept
generalizability
to
on
OF
generalized
making
a
three
six
of
in
in
It
situations.
nd
operationalizations.
CAB,
ABC,
are
example,
is.
construct
(see
TYPES
population.
to
unit).
is
of
requires
participants:
procedure
Construct
(for
designs
relates
results
however
,
there
conditions
conditions
the
BCA,
T
able
when
counterbalancing
they
aim
study
.
data).
difcult
many
which
chances
out
Counterbalancing,
practice.
more
are
less
bias,
the
higher
the
internal
validity
of
the
two
experiment.
of
validity
.
Population
validity
ndings
be
BIAS
Bias
in
IN
can
THE
Threat
sources
to
to
of
internal
the
from
EXPERIMENT:
experimental
common
refers
generalized
research
comes
internal
validity
Selection
in
to
which
sample
THREATS
threat
to
extent
the
the
to
TO
form
validity
the
target
INTERNAL
of
Usually
there
validity
and
on
variables
Campbell
at
some
the
that
of
which
they
the
and
IV
can
groups
the
differ
the
affects
DV
are
not
experiment,
(like
the
entirely
and
the
equivalent
way
relationship
comparing
relationship
between
internal
validity
.
reduce
How
reason
start
inverse
internal
validity
.
There
are
several
1969).
Explanation
For
an
VALIDITY
confounding
(based
is
ecological
it
Random
group
in
can
be
counteracted
allocation
into
groups;
sufciently
large
sizes
between
apples
and
oranges).
History
Outside
course
in
events
of
lengthy
sometime
188
Unit
8—Research
the
methods
that
happen
experiment.
experiments
after
in
the
It
to
is
where
onset
of
participants
especially
the
the
psychology
DV
is
study
.
a
in
the
problem
measured
Standardize
as
possible
created
experimental
in
all
during
groups
the
procedures
to
avoid
experiment
as
history
itself.
much
effects
Maturation
T
esting
The
effect
natural
changes
the
course
the
procedure
The
rst
second
of
is
in
effectiveness
measured
you
repeated
and
case
Occurs
of
when
changes
In
the
the
day
,
Regression
to
the
mean
This
DV
For
example,
a
participants
anxiety
Occurs
Demand
characteristics
if
is
of
T
able
8.6
EXAM
If
you
Threats
internal
identied
the
(construct
“Discuss
of
can
same
be
both
that
the
groups,
affected.
designs
same
assume
in
test
there
and
must
retest,
be
but
no
manipulation.
measures
designs,
counterbalancing
used.
a
Standardize
as
or
measurement
across
all
conditions
comparison
as
much
groups
and
all
observers.
of
For
throughout
miss
more
the
score
very
and
whose
control
DV
,
but
group
no
with
the
experimental
same
starting
score
on
the
manipulation.
your
initial
participants
even
A
on
high).
effectiveness
anxiety
these
possible
day
.
initial
people
participants
becomes
out
is
a
not
if
no
drop
will
session
the
is
more
alter
the
are
a
designs
than
same
their
in
the
the
Whenever
possible,
conditions
in
feel
every
such
discomfort
Deception
true
(however
,
behaviour
because
bigger
because
one
design
a
way
causing
experimental
that
participants
them
to
do
withdraw
not
from
of
conceal
what
in
true
participants
extent
aim
of
the
aim
were
of
the
study
arise).
questionnaires
participants
the
true
considerations
Post-experimental
that.
problem
to
ethical
to
able
nd
to
out
guess
to
the
study
.
condition.
researcher
participants’
of
when
participation.
unintentionally)
in
out
problem
understand
and
measures
Using
unintentionally
behaviour
and
the
results
the
double-blind
participants
of
been
study
.
nor
assigned
the
to
design
where
experimenter
what
neither
knows
who
the
has
condition.
validity
validity),
how
bias
the
in
stimulus
possibility
a
to
of
other
researcher
experimental
in
paper
settings
could
Allocation
between
into
the
the
Allocation
into
the
validity)
the
this
is
ndings
and
results
of
to
the
how
of
you
the
other
study
can
study
.”
people
are
approach
Write
answering
about
(population
credible.”
Write
some
of
the
questions:
generalization
to
the
theory
validity).
about
internal
validity
and
ways
to
way
they
the
in
is
in
groups
allows
is
done
randomly
.
researchers
done
is
not
the
to
Researchers
interpret
basis
cannot
but
results
pre-existing
be
by
of
view
articial
of
sure
the
The
the
of
can
the
be
differences,
the
researcher
,
resemble
possible
assume
study
for
are
as
that
a
the
IV
is
the
cause–effect
(because
are
age,
in
inferences
they
confounding
example,
equivalent
cause–effect
experiments
only
difference
relationship
(the
IV
all
cannot
they
are
cultural
As
a
made.
a
comparison
correlational
better
background,
characteristics.
be
involve
essentially
variables
gender
,
other
of
studies.
controlled
this
way
,
it
validity
.
manipulates
controlled.
groups
inferences,
Since
ecological
researcher
cannot
that
conditions.
compromises
settings.
variables
of
quasi-experiments
point
controlled,
real-life
the
manipulated
designed,
validity
confounding
on
Researchers
from
highly
internal
Conducted
IV
are
However
,
Conducted
many
groups
occupation.
In
the
This
DV).
because
increases
experiment
experiment,
experimental
result,
groups).
experiment
that
groups.
inuences
education,
Laboratory
an
(ecological
ensure
Explanation
Quasi-experiment
as
research.
T
rue
experiment
3
generalizing/transferring
T
ype
Field
not
the
we
TIP
“Discuss
avoid
to
be
If
the
measures
group,
repeated
are
them.
take
the
is
measurement
and
low
anxious
experiment
when
group.
will
independent
must
the
observer
.
the
the
reduce
repeated
inuences
comparison
control
In
assess
reduce
effect
the
tired
very
high,
less
of
assessing
to
characteristics
Occurs
control
maturation
experimental
the
measurements,
of
when
Demand
part
a
of
questionnaire
happening
end
group
only
or
a
you
to
measuring
grow
participants
the
if
“instrument
are
condition.
of
In
the
designs
testing
human
experimental
(intentionally
bias
a
Occurs
aim
Experimenter
the
the
dropping
when
rates
training.
designs
are
some
It
Having
in
(if
the
affect
session
anxiety
(either
very
with
when
rate
a
or
effects.
may
you
are
experiment.
the
an
threat
become
conducted
mortality
a
may
example,
the
often
by
through
fatigue
growth.
measures
between
session
score
naturally
Experimental
is
extreme
training
DV
standardization
details
the
of
use
observations
becomes
is
the
instrument
observers
important
time)
go
as
measurements.
For
psychology
if
such
training
after
slightly
measurement”
example,
a
order
compromising
process.
of
measures
special
DV
twice.
could
before
in
independent
is
In
of
subsequent)
the
both
participants
extended
DV
anxiety
,
that
experiment,
measurement
(and
Sometimes
Instrumentation
the
This
the
IV
,
increases
but
since
ecological
participants
validity
Research
and
are
in
their
decreases
methods
in
natural
internal
setting
validity
.
psychology
189
Natural
experiment
Conducted
but
occurs
naturally
months
and
the
8.7
T
ype
of
Special
types
of
laboratory
T
rue
eld
participants’
then
For
variable.
lifted.
disadvantage
Another
is
natural
example,
Another
Just
like
internal
advantage
of
environments.
when
television
example
with
eld
validity
natural
is
a
is
In
addition
introduced
smoking
experiments,
due
to
a
large
experiments
is
ban
the
that,
a
that
they
of
the
remote
was
advantage
number
that
to
on
IV
is
of
natural
be
used
manipulated
for
introduced
confounding
can
not
island
the
in
a
rst
city
for
experiments
variables
when
it
is
that
Independent
experiment
experiment
experiment
variable
Settings
8.8
Manipulated
by
the
researcher
Laboratory
Y
es
by
the
researcher
Real-life
Y
es
8.4
IS
A
be
researcher
,
made.
T
wo
relationship
A
–
A
studies
A
or
A
more
of
the
manipulated;
nature
Real-life
pre-existing
difference
we
(but
is
positive
like
A,
a
variable
variables
measure
is
is
manipulated
of
are
between
inferences
measured
linear
impossible
to
to
manipulate
the
IV
.
infer
there
or
real-life
causation?
may
be
variables)
speaking
no
No
means
two
that
vary
and
the
A
correlation
relationship
the
close
to
between
zero
the
Positive
between
from
there
variables:
–
means
two
that
there
is
no
variables.
Negative
No
Correlation
quantied.
relationship
can
by
cannot
is
an
-1
to
two
+1.
inverse
higher
A,
the
correlation
SIZE
higher
means
a
direct
relationship:
the
AND
any
STATISTICAL
other
may
be
statistical
8.6
Correlations
B.
inferential
SIGNIFICANCE
statistical
test,
a
The
and
six
validity
studies
mathematically
coefcient
correlation
the
with
correlation
size
Strictly
Laboratory
Figure
Just
a
of
B.
higher
EFFECT
period
experiments
cause–effect
them
correlation
negative
lower
no
therefore
relationship
–
types
between
correlation
variables.
researcher
is
CORRELATION?
correlational
the
of
by
Correlational
WHAT
In
Not
Comparison
the
that
ecological
are
unethical
Can
Manipulated
Manipulated
Quasi-experiment
T
able
a
is
confounding
Natural
by
time,
experiments
experiment
T
rue
the
occurring
and
control.
T
able
in
naturally
.
characterized
by
two
parameters:
effect
due
signicance.
Notation
probability
that
the
to
result
Interpretation
is
random
chance
The
effect
size
is
the
absolute
value
of
the
correlation
More
coefcient
(a
number
from
0
to
1).
It
shows
how
large
than
5%
p
=
n.s.
Result
is
non-
the
signicant
correlation
sciences
is.
are
Interpretation
shown
in
the
boundaries
table
below
acceptable
(based
on
in
social
Cohen
1988).
Less
than
5%
p
<
.05
Result
is
statistically
signicant
Correlation
coefcient
different
effect
size
than
from
zero)
(r)
Less
Less
(reliably
Interpretation
0.10
than
1%
p
=
<
.01
Result
is
very
Negligible
signicant
0.10–0.29
Small
0.30–0.49
Medium
Less
than
0.1%
p
=
<
.001
Result
is
highly
signicant
0.50
and
larger
Large
T
able
T
able
8.10
8.9
When
Statistical
signicance
correlation
of
likelihood
is
statistically
used
in
this
less
size
than
has
5%,
signicant.
interpreting
shows
the
been
the
There
obtained
correlation
are
statistical
likelihood
by
is
that
a
chance.
accepted
conventional
cut-off
interpreting
account
If
this
signicance.
as
not
points
small
signicance.
both
mean
If
a
correlation
it
is
8—Research
methods
in
psychology
with
that
large,
can
Researchers
Remember
Unit
size
that
correlations
190
correlations,
effect
correlations
zero).
from
the
be
is
large
effect
cause–effect
studies.
level
statistically
in
signicant
looking
needs
the
because
are
correlational
one
and
for
to
of
take
into
statistical
signicant,
large
samples
(reliably
it
different
statistically
does
even
from
signicant
sizes.
inferences
cannot
be
made
CREDIBILITY
Bias
in
measurement
there
is
BIAS
in
a
ON
bias
may
bias
is
other
BIAS
on
research
occur
to
in
of
research
OF
method
inherent
specic
CORRELATIONAL
can
interpretation
LEVEL
the
IN
research
correlational
be
not
and
THE
Depending
any
AND
correlational
study
,
to
study
using
same
bias
in
interpretation
of
of
ON
The
RESEARCH
of
less
variable
it
bias
is.
Credibility
internal
credible
in
validity
“internal
correlational
in
research
experimental
validity”
is
not
used
is
research;
in
the
same
however
,
correlational
idea
the
as
term
studies.
MEASUREMENT
the
variables,
procedure.
research
the
level
more
measure
BIAS
Source
the
measurement
correlational
the
ndings.
VARIABLE
used
the
on
and
will
variable
THE
in
This
occur
in
the
measured
LEVEL
the
same
measure
OF
biases
biases
way
.
the
inherent
inherent
in
INTERPRETATION
Explanation
For
example,
variables,
How
in
the
if
observation
researcher
observation.
questionnaires
OF
bias
If
needs
is
to
used
be
questionnaires
become
an
to
aware
are
of
all
used,
issue.
FINDINGS
can
be
counteracted
ndings
Curvilinear
In
relationships
we
between
linear
.
The
variables
third
variable
calculating
assume
the
is
curvilinear
relationships
correlation
coefcient.
that
is
a
formula
always
correlates
you
will
not
mean
a
Spurious
Spurious
correlations
chance.
they
are
multiple
correlations
there
them
signicant,
not
be
explains
only
measure
is
a
between
If
if
even
the
variable
them,
should
be
standard
Consider
exists
and
the
A
and
but
obtained
research
computes
you
chance
relationships
it
potential
include
investigate
B,
them
the
“third
in
links
the
variables”
research
between
A,
in
advance
study
B
and
to
explicitly
these
“third
variables”.
does
directly
.
and
them.
correlations,
will
third
issue
variables
between
a
and
correlations
an
in
a
you
curvilinear
graphically
.
However
,
captured
B
If
suspected,
investigated
is
correlation
line.
that
related
are
become
be
a
If
variables,
them
and
correlation
correlations
They
includes
a
them.
of
straight
A
two
between
formula
a
cannot
with
between
that
of
possibility
both
observe
between
relationship
Mathematically
correlation
T
able
correlation
the
coefcient
There
problem
the
that
in
a
small
reality
with
of
100
number
the
of
multiple
correlations
should
be
interpreted
caution.
Effect
multiple
measure
that
if
Results
by
study
sizes
need
statistical
to
be
considered
together
with
the
level
signicance.
of
variables
are
related.
8.11
Best-fitting
linear
correlation
Figure
8.7
Curvilinear
SAMPLING
Sampling
are
the
AND
strategies
same:
of
of
the
the
and
target
sample
stratied
than
GENERALIZABILITY
in
correlational
random,
Generalizability
is
relationship
stratied,
depends
on
population.
depends
samples
opportunity
and
on
its
the
tend
to
IN
more
self-selected
the
sample
representativeness
sampling
be
research
self-selected.
representative
turn,
CORRELATIONAL
experimental
opportunity
,
how
In
and
strategy
.
Random
representative
samples.
This
aspect
of
STUDIES
generalizability
experimental
Another
the
is
aspect
extent
to
similar
to
of
the
way
captures
construct.
also
8.2
idea
generalizability
which
(operationalized)
T
able
the
of
population
validity
in
research.
This
near
is
the
the
similar
start
of
construct
are
theoretical
to
this
Research
is
variables
validity—
measured
nature
experimental
of
the
research
(see
unit).
methods
in
psychology
191
8.5
Qualitative
CREDIBILITY
Credibility
validity
in
in
IN
QUALITATIVE
qualitative
the
research
experiment;
validity”
cannot
are
interchangeably
used
(the
generic
Measure
to
be
term)
research
used.
and
increase
is
the
however
,
For
to
RESEARCH
equivalent
the
term
qualitative
express
research
this
idea:
two
credibility
terms
and
rapport
Building
to
comparing
questioning
a
T
aking
study
.
and
their
question.
to
the
This
into
the
to
account
that
trust
with
that
there
topic
allows
collect
might
checks
Checking
notes
or
descriptions)
of
BIAS
IN
Sources
credibility
QUALITATIVE
of
both
with
there
are
bias
the
two
researcher
in
groups
of
from
a
the
research
question
reect
reality
“T
o
as
it
a
what
it
credibility
what
extent
is?”
the
in
the
have
that
been
perspectives
of
the
of
the
by
data:
or
or
sources
theories
to
the
answers.
of
different
interpret
necessity
All
this
the
to
be
prevents
researchers
data.
honest,
the
participants
right
from
researcher
.
interaction
of
sensitive
researcher’
s
researchers
bias.
reexivity—taking
interpreting
observations
bad
good
allow
affected
accessible
emphasizing
process
necessarily
of
comparing
no
investigation
possibility
not
and
participant,
are
presence
deeper
the
the
collecting
methods
variety
and
There
into
reexivity—taking
resulted
accuracy
of
observations
in
with
the
participant
and
rephrasing
the
topics.
own
to
are
account
biases
avoid
two
may
bias,
types
strengths
be
but
of
it
affecting
allows
the
results
them
to
of
the
identify
reexivity:
and
limitations
of
the
methods
used
data
and
into
account
personal
beliefs
and
expectations
of
the
researcher
that
bias.
by
asking
conrm
participants
that
the
themselves
notes/transcripts
in
the
observed
Contextual
observed
qualitative
this
behaviour
details
should
behaviour
in
sufcient
detail
be
sufcient
to
to
read
reect
transcripts
correctly
of
what
interviews
the
or
eld
participants
said
so
make
that
the
it
can
be
understood
description
holistically
meaningful
to
an
and
in
outsider
who
rst-hand.
research
research
and
the
biases:
can
be
associated
participant.
participant
Hence
bias
and
Explanation
Acquiescence
bias
A
tendency
question.
It
to
Ways
give
may
agreeableness
research
desirability
bias
they
of
be
respondent
bias
behaving
Occurs
or
will
to
to
whatever
with
the
Researchers
natural
questions.
participant’
s
participant
neutral.
feels
something
respond
make
them
or
produce
naturally
,
in
a
group
or
in
behave
more
liked
unintentionally
,
a
and
certain
this
like
interview
inuences
participants
feel
the
the
overcome
the
It
“wrong”
should
the
be
Questions
should
be
bias
careful
should
clear
not
be
that
to
ask
leading
open-ended
there
are
no
and
“right”
or
answers.
is
in
or
a
way
more
participants
impression
especially
instead
true
Questions
Good
be
asked
your
should
rapport
about
friends
be
phrased
should
a
think
be
third
in
a
non-judgmental
established.
person
(for
Questions
example,
way
.
can
“what
do
about…?”).
for
topics.
participants
Other
answers
to
disagreeing
Intentionally
trying
sensitive
because
tendency
think
accepted.
may
due
to
situation.
Participants'
that
positive
occur
or
uncomfortable
Dominant
qualitative
is
tests
bias.
Bias
Social
to
study
validity)
experiment
RESEARCH
qualitative
researcher
related
the
in
(internal
the
data
have
Describing
never
ensure
which
did.
context.
to
in
later
a
does
may
personal
Measures
credibility
to
Similarly
,
is
of
to
different
multiple
of
epistemological
8.12
test.
ndings
approaches
data
fact
behaviour
Reexivity
ndings
T
able
the
triangulation—combining
relationship
Returning
Reexivity
different
triangulation—using
withdraw
altering
(rich
to
research
extent
(trustworthiness)
triangulation—using
theory
descriptions
the
intended
triangulation—combining
researcher
Thick
is
of
Explanation
data
Credibility
experimental
measure
“credibility”
method
Iterative
In
do
Combining
a
internal
“trustworthiness”.
T
riangulation
Establishing
of
“internal
they
may
will
be
the
be
setting
when
behaviour
of
intimidated
compared
to
by
the
one
the
of
the
others.
such
people
Researchers
respondents
equal
should
in
be
check
opportunities
trained
and
to
try
to
to
keep
dominant
provide
everyone
with
speak.
dominant
respondent.
Sensitivity
T
able
192
8.13
bias
T
ypes
Unit
A
of
tendency
of
participants
honestly
but
sensitive
topics.
participant
8—Research
bias
in
distort
to
answer
responses
regular
to
questions
questions
on
Building
ethical
the
qualitative
methods
their
in
research
psychology
a
good
rapport
considerations
sensitivity
of
the
and
such
creating
as
trust.
Reinforcing
condentiality
.
questions
gradually
.
Increasing
Bias
Explanation
Conrmation
bias
Occurs
when
research
(intentionally
this
belief.
may
bias
Occurs
in
a
It
of
behaviour
questions
researcher
the
selectivity
Leading
Ways
the
when
way
“When
did
may
the
that
or
itself
tiny
questions
last
a
have
a
prior
belief
unintentionally)
in
such
the
in
an
to
in
interview
answer
.
conrm
thoughts
the
process.
and
the
is
bias
unavoidable
the
human
However
,
taken
into
because
observer
this
bias
account
in
is
an
can
be
through
integral
the
process
reexivity
.
Interviewers
worded
example,
about
of
this
research
recognized
of
are
overcome
speaking,
qualitative
part
as
non-verbal
For
to
Strictly
uses
participants.
certain
angry
and
things
differences
inuence
encourage
you
or
manifest
attention
that
has
neutral
should
be
trained
in
asking
open-ended,
questions.
your
classmates?”
Question
order
bias
Occurs
the
Biased
reporting
when
Occurs
when
represented
T
able
8.14
T
ypes
EXAM
If
you
of
researcher
identied
be
–
Discuss
how
a
–
Discuss
how
the
all
helpful
biases
interview
TYPES
There
but
OF
are
T
ype
bias
in
response
to
one
responses
to
subsequent
some
in
the
ndings
research
qualitative
of
question
the
study
inuences
This
questions.
are
not
bias
asking
equally
report.
cannot
general
be
avoided
questions
but
can
before
questions
before
negative
questions
before
attitude-related
Reexivity
.
to
review
Also
the
ones
independent
results
be
minimized
specic
and
ones,
behaviour-related
questions.
researchers
(researcher
by
positive
may
be
asked
triangulation).
research
TIP
have
will
Not
the
participant’
s
to
the
answer
research
the
researcher
could
researcher
are
applicable
not
in
an
study
following
to
in
all
ensure
the
of
types
the
stimulus
3
that
study
the
could
qualitative
material
in
paper
3
as
a
qualitative
research
study
,
the
material
above
questions:
results
avoid
research
of
the
study
are
credible.
bias.
studies.
For
example,
the
leading
question
bias
is
an
issue
in
an
observation.
GENERALIZABILITY
three
in
paper
of
IN
generalization
QUALITATIVE
that
can
be
RESEARCH
applied
both
to
qualitative
Explanation
and
quantitative
Equivalent
in
research
quantitative
(Firestone
1993).
research
generalization
Sample-to-
Applying
population
It
generalization
way
the
depends
to
research
is
Generalizing
theory
.
We
saturation
people
(transferability)
research
so
the
or
the
a
that
the
a
of
to
ndings
of
and
has
or
type
or
the
in
role
validity
best
randomly
.
generalization
in
broader
Data
in
to
reader
theory
new
a
different
is
of
In
the
the
report
if
is
to
A
similar
it
refers
idea
to
is
the
construct
“leap”
operationalizations
data
a
point
to
validity
from
the
because
observable
unobservable
construct.
the
the
context
for
research
is
the
group
Ecological
of
are
The
validity
experimental
responsibility
information.
new
broader
qualitative
descriptions
the
a
interpretations.
context.
thick
to
qualitative
saturation
anything
and
study
that
of
The
qualitative
observations
a
sufcient
not
described
a
is.
sample
in
Population
population.
sample
to
generalization
ensures
reader
to
add
setting
is
greater
achieved.
not
wider
point.
conclusions
different
whether
this
particular
much
a
the
sampling
weak
does
researcher
one
study
generalize
case-to-case
the
a
of
been
data
researcher
decides
to
can
formulated
Applying
is
plays
has
further
generalization
The
nature
results
Theory
Case-to-case
the
non-probabilistic,
generalization
already
the
research
Theoretical
research.
of
representative
representativeness
since
qualitative
both
how
ensure
However
,
when
results
on
(generalizing
settings
to
from
real-life
settings)
of
report.
provided
reader
similar
ndings
enough
to
be
applicable.
T
able
8.15
Research
methods
in
psychology
193
TYPES
OF
Sampling
not
aim
to
qualitative
ensure
population.
Sampling
Quota
SAMPLING
in
IN
QUALITATIVE
research
is
representativeness
Instead,
it
aims
strategy
to
It
is
to
ensure
decided
include
have.
This
that
to
It
a
does
recruited
target
interest
for
to
the
the
study
people
to
sampling
the
in
to
advance.
sampling
A
It
are
of
special
further
A
small
interest
start
is
driven
are
people
of
and
the
by
the
then
are
research
which
how
research
used
to
sampled.
What
they
question.
meet
is
the
the
characteristics
sampling,
but
the
This
because
quota.
that
are
Various
important
have
people
should
many
characteristics
are
It
is
of
is
all
is
completely
characteristics
dened
of
in
advance
theory-driven
of
the
based
sample
on
the
question.
that
interest
is
participants
a
more
“relaxed”
question.
interest
is
of
within
to
Y
ou
approach
recruit
size
sample
to
whoever
and
are
dened
sampling
has
Slightly
the
not
the
driven
that
in
are
by
less
target
theory-driven
dened
in
composition
characteristics
approach
characteristics
advance,
of
the
of
but
sample
in
participants
the
is
not.
you.
purposive
reached.
information
sample
the
is
sampling
Data
that
saturation
obtained
from
is
stops
the
new
when
point
participants
Whether
data
when
dened
no
added
information
on
the
basis
is
“new”
of
the
or
not
is
background
theory
.
to
number
they
to
of
know
the
participants
who
also
researcher
.
other
sampling
Using
the
It
is
invited
have
can
the
be
and
asked
to
characteristics
used
in
invite
that
combination
are
of
Convenient
with
are
to
difcult
groups
reach
of
(for
people
who
example,
gang
members).
with
strategies.
sample
that
is
readily
available.
The
the
most
most
cost-efcient
method,
but
also
supercial.
you
TIP
have
identied
the
the
question
“Discuss
–
Consider
the
–
Identify
–
Make
8.6
the
sure
three
to
use
will
research
the
of
any
of
given
in
and
terms
the
stimulus
discuss
related
in
it
to
qualitative
in
relation
quantitative
qualitative
RESEARCH
following
material
generalizing/transferring
generalizability
strategy
QUALITATIVE
consider
study
possibility
types
sampling
not
research
the
Specic
SPECIFIC
We
are
8.16
EXAM
If
approach
research
not
sampling
T
able
that
sample.
people
Convenience
of
type
saturation
sampling
the
sample
sample
quota
research
the
characteristics
participants
strategies
how
proportions
that
the
question.
researcher
.
Similar
the
the
the
have
research
Notes
decision
important
Snowball
relation
before
in
recruitment
Theoretical
in
Explanation
sampling
Purposive
RESEARCH
non-probabilistic.
examples
the
research
to
in
paper
ndings
of
3
as
the
a
qualitative
study”,
study
consider
(sample-to-population,
and
the
you
are
answering
following.
case-to-case,
theoretical).
generalizability
.
research
(such
as
"validity")—that
research
would
be
methods:
a
mistake.
Overview
METHODS
of
qualitative
methods:
–
observation
–
interview
–
focus
–
case
group
study
.
OBSERVATION
Common
reasons
to
choose
observation
include
the
•
Observation
following.
•
experiences
The
focus
in
natural
of
the
research
is
on
how
people
setting.
Most
other
methods
placing
the
participant
in
an
researcher
to
phenomenon
gain
under
rst-hand
study
.
main
limitation
of
observation
is
the
fact
that
the
would
researcher
require
the
the
interact
The
a
allows
with
articially
is
strongly
involved
in
the
generation
of
data
created
through
selective
attention
and
interpretation.
However
,
this
environment.
is
•
Meaningful
knowledge
in
a
research
area
cannot
the
case
articulated,
asking
194
Unit
so
participants
observing
for
8—Research
their
behaviour
is
preferable
interpretations.
methods
in
most
qualitative
be
reexivity
easily
with
psychology
to
especially
important.
research
methods.
It
makes
TYPES
•
OF
OBSERVATION
Laboratory
is
carried
versus
out
arranged
for
in
naturalistic.
real-life
the
settings
purposes
of
Naturalistic
that
the
have
study
.
observation
observation
not
is
and
Laboratory
most
Pros
Sometimes
it
observation
is
to
unethical
laboratory
articiality
Laboratory
It
observation
frequently
is
the
as
they
specially
are
know
designed
invited
that
they
to
the
laboratory
are
participating
the
behaviour
in
research.
the
to
is
recreate
to
a
for
example
particular
not
research
emerge
possible
option,
when
behaviour
in
it
It
a
interest
may
be
time-consuming
only
occurs
at
because
certain
of
times.
violence).
behaviour
of
possible
only
encourage
(such
Participants’
is
in
Cons
Naturalistic
It
out
Participants
often
psychological
is
carried
environments.
been
in
situations
real
isolate
inuenced
by
the
procedure.
that
do
Articiality
not
behaviour
life.
the
behaviour
of
interest
of
of
the
procedure
may
inuence
the
participants.
more
efciently
.
T
able
8.17
Non-participant
•
Overt
versus
participants
covert.
are
aware
Overt
of
observation
the
fact
that
occurs
they
are
when
More
impartial.
Some
observation
the
details
group
being
can
only
understood
observed.
In
covert
observation
the
researcher
does
the
members
of
the
group
about
the
reasons
perspective
a
member
.
presence.
T
able
Pros
observation
give
Participants'
informed
consent,
expectations
so
guidelines
inuence
Participants
ethical
are
8.19
Cons
•
Overt
of
for
group
their
be
from
not
the
inform
about
observed
Participants
observation
suspect
do
that
their
Structured
versus
observation
information
in
a
standardized
of
observed
Often
not
do
they
participants
being
way
,
is
for
not
consent
being
observed,
behaviours
unstructured
In
recorded
example
structured
systematically
using
a
and
checklist
prepared
observation
there
is
in
advance.
no
In
checklist
and
to
observers
are
unstructured.
behaviour
.
followed.
Covert
may
simply
register
whatever
behaviour
they
nd
observed,
noteworthy
.
so
they
which
behave
raises
ethical
issues.
naturally
.
Pros
T
able
•
Cons
Structured
The
procedure
observation
standardized
May
is
be
inexible:
8.18
Participant
versus
observation
the
non-participant.
observer
becomes
In
part
participant
of
the
can
use
same
certain
one
in
not
the
research
aspects
behaviour
multiple
observers
observed
so
included
checklist
study
.
that
will
of
were
in
the
be
group.
missed.
Pros
Cons
Participant
Allows
observation
researcher
There
the
is
a
Unstructured
More
observation
the
is
that
to
the
will
the
not
limited
within”
and
become
involved
“from
group
gain
researchers
theoretical
across
with
and
and
too
across
participants.
the
lose
T
able
important
less
comparable
by
expectations.
phenomenon
structured
means
observer
prior
experience
Less
exible:
researcher
risk
8.20
objectivity
.
insights.
INTERVIEW
Common
reasons
to
choose
the
interview
include
the
•
following.
•
It
may
be
the
subjective
option
is
to
Interviews
opinions,
only
way
experiences
phenomena
•
The
to
are
rely
can
to
get
and
an
on
attitudes
sometimes
participants’
used
and
to
verbal
understand
the
into
interpretations.
unobservable,
be
insight
meanings
participants’
Since
the
these
only
only
past
way
to
events
self-report—you
•
In-depth
is
too
understand
(for
example,
cannot
individual
sensitive
for
how
recreate
interviews
people
to
participants
trauma)
is
also
those
are
in
through
experiences.
useful
discuss
respond
only
a
when
group
the
topic
setting.
reports.
Interview
data
comes
recording
that
is
in
the
form
of
an
audio
or
video
participants’
they
attach
subsequently
converted
to
an
interview
to
transcript
certain
events.
Research
methods
in
psychology
195
T
ype
Explanation
Structured
interviews
Such
list
Pros
interviews
of
include
questions
that
in
order
.
asked
a
xed
a
need
to
Cons
Especially
xed
be
research
interviews
Such
an
interviews
order
or
questions.
is
questions
there
is
interviews
Such
knows
also
exibility
determined
to
are
next
by
the
list
conversation
better
.
Better
for
of
guide
the
suited
effective
unique
but
standardized
ow
that
to
a
the
cannot
be
structured
have
or
opinions
accommodated
in
interview.
way
.
Less
of
comparability
researchers
smaller
may
circumstances
and
across
participants.
research
projects.
More
certain
to
the
essential
participants
unique
several
conduct
in
ts
a
all
natural
in
studying
experiences
of
the
each
participant.
ask
questions.
Very
participant-
question
the
they
is
It
asked,
follow-up
Every
answer
that
it
interview
checklist:
be
interviews
driven.
a
that
and
Some
the
involves
specify
interview
like
must
additional
not
particular
The
somewhat
researcher
Unstructured
a
do
when
project
interviewers
ensure
Semi-structured
useful
interviewee’
s
previous
effective
unique
is
theoretical
would
one.
cases
for
or
where
expectations
inform
The
investigating
cases
the
exist
wording
all
no
“qualitative”
types.
consuming
that
of
most
three
difcult
the
to
More
and
of
time-
results
analyse
are
and
more
interpret.
questions.
T
able
8.21
T
ypes
FOCUS
The
is
that
(usually
for
6
a
observed
case
special
to
10).
are
also
of
to
agree
This
analysed
acts
as
The
a
by
semi-structured
with
unique
encouraged
statements.
and
type
simultaneously
example,
certain
this
is
participants
other
,
on
group
conducted
people
is
interview
GROUP
focus
that
of
and
small
feature
to
group
researcher
.
facilitator
who
interview
group
of
interact
disagree
creates
the
a
this
method
with
with
keeps
each
other
that
•
are
aspects
It
respond
is
easier
in
a
on
the
research
reasons
to
Multiple
Participants
Moreover
,
choose
interact
This
the
STUDY
A
study
group.
(such
the
Case
as
is
an
focus
interviews,
though
case
each
their
group
often
the
methods,
an
participants
a
are
of
variety
an
of
or
a
may
•
The
for
they
the
are
essentially
considered
following
individual
study
is
or
unique
understanding
•
Since
the
sampling
•
•
There
The
of
to
is
of
is
not
is
different
focus
group
this
an
a
of
Focus
or
a
as
a
separate
that
way
.
is
The
particular
is
on
the
object
purpose
individual
interested
in
this
focus
a
sensitive
are
questions
discussed
more
groups
deepen
and
holistic
include
are
and
may
when
which
you
allows
understanding
the
to
to
disrupt
affect
their
of
the
following.
the
the
dynamics.
behaviour
of
condentiality
demanding
interview
choose
group
other
responses.
preserve
especially
creating
reasons
can
distort
difcult
groups
•
Case
studies
are
cannot
be
unique
brain
useful
studied
in
in
a
terms
group.
of
transcripts.
case
study
include
the
to
investigate
otherwise,
damage
or
for
phenomena
example,
long-term
a
case
that
of
deprivation.
of
Case
studies
can
contradict
established
theories
and
in
research
way
urge
scientists
is
of
to
or
a
case
gain
deep
Limitations
•
group.
particular
thoroughly
,
and
of
because
case,
case
Researcher
for
often
of
results.
the
to
develop
using
a
combination
•
longitudinally
.
In
case
or
a
8—Research
methods
in
psychology
the
the
Generalization
settings
include
new
ones.
studies
of
part
time,
of
the
of
ndings
it
of
is
are
with
which
participant
may
researcher)
from
a
is
compromise
and
and
single
to
their
inuence
is.
case
particularly
difcult
participants
problems
the
behaviour
population
especially
following.
bias
interacts
participant’
s
wider
the
participant
periods
(on
natural
and
researcher
prolonged
how
studies
bias
condentiality
Unit
one-on-one
following.
•
196
to
respondents
impartiality
generalizability
very
methods,
more
Common
interest.
combination
is
sampling
methods
to
It
•
issue.
studied
a
reasons.
some
researcher
less
case
the
in
get
assertiveness
•
reveal
individual
other
group
the
natural.
questionnaires)
individual
studies
than
more
this
method
of
Dominant
Their
•
other
in
interaction
include
rather
investigation
involve
observations,
of
other
behaviour
between
in-depth
studies
understanding
Even
with
makes
interaction
CASE
case
perspectives
participants
researcher
.
revealed
questions.
following.
•
be
researcher
.
topic.
•
Common
to
the
group.
Limitations
focused
would
with
researchers
in
than
conversation
are
interviewer
the
•
each
dynamics
The
more
of
to
other
problematic.
protect
data.
the
EXAM
TIP
One
of
your
choice”.
Once
the
you
have
limitations
research
Respect
that
compulsory
of
study
.
the
If
original
Some
chose
possible
examples
are
shown
method
the
“Suggest
used
that
of
best
researcher
in
conduct
one
be
a
and
the
research
this
to
additional
in
would
the
be
research
stimulus
most
method
material,
relevant
in
think
the
hypothesis
or
therefore
study
,
they
research
an
must
have
pursued
in
addition
to
(or
instead
of)
another
,
alternative/addition
Semi-structured
The
with
interview
reason
There
were
study
Experiment
is
are
in
the
observation
Covert
main
not
just
say
conducted
and
sample-to-
reason
for
this
participant
observation
measures
design
In
a
are
If
out
their
part
the
do
the
one
the
xed
some
As
a
experiences
an
not
show
context
of
causation,
the
study
of
the
variables
then
the
study
can
can
be
experiment.
reasons
to
believe
knew
altered
their
they
that
the
were
behaviour
,
fact
being
leading
to
bias.
repeated
increases
to
in
participants
take
that
forced
unnaturally
.
of
studies
as
participant
independent
order
missed.
observed
Experiment,
believe
respond
manipulated,
There
to
suggestion
xed
aspects
causation
that
design
to
some
conducted
in
measures
more
the
true
demand
than
chance
aim
of
design,
one
that
the
participants
condition
they
study
.
will
This
that
gure
may
lead
characteristics.
8.22
8.7
Identifying
EXAM
One
aims
this
reasons
important.
be
T
able
for
described
do
been
one
for
Correlational
but
measures
the
the
example,
have
different
along
result,
repeated
For
should
participants
Experiment,
of
reason
them.
Suggested
non-participant
through
context
question.
experiment
questions
Overt
one
below.
interview
Correlational
giving
limitation.
original
research
or
study
generalizability
qualitative
suggested
alternative
limitations
addresses
unimportant
method
table
an
the
these
sample-to-population
method
Structured
is
method
to
the
3
which
might
of
in
paper
the
of
lacks
in
consider
the
intention
research
generalizability
suggestion,
Original
and
select
researchers
population
identied
method
Then
qualitative
instead.
clearly
this
questions
of
the
research
method
TIP
the
compulsory
questions
in
paper
3
is
“Identify
the
research
method
used
and
outline
two
characteristics
of
the
method”.
For
this
question
characteristics
tips
•
on
In
how
your
you
variable
For
study
fact
•
For
this
can
method
types
the
of
the
of
in
of
be
is
may
in
the
study
depend
on
described
the
For
example,
instead
non-participant,
overt
be
the
there
as
not
all
the
is
by
of
an
specics
of
saying
or
in
the
stimulus
of
the
study
.
material.
However
,
“experiment”,
covert.
experiences
and
the
are
way
that
if
the
qualitative
interview
and
are
and
is
guide
there
different
the
groups
A
an
For
identify
interviews,
you
may
The
here
the
identify
not
For
are
some
design.
whether
fact
brain
by
could
measures
be
that
by
it
For
is
ones
that
semi-structured
interview,
methods?
Semi-structured
interviews
contains
some
from
similar
the
exibility
other
list
in
of
how
qualitative
rapport
is
approach
topics
research
created
may
that
questions
be
and
used
help
then
are
be
to
a
questions
other
and
you
so
are
The
distinguish
makes
different
in
on.
data.
to
what
be
and
correlational
it
from
covered,
formulated.
methods
for
researcher
,
in
gathering
need
can
controlled.
independent
designs).
the
of
is
the
are
technology
method
the
the
variables
scanning
the
example,
variables
example,
manipulated
the
not
For
confounding
design.
be
but
identied
method
experiment.
the
independent
but
questionnaires,
participant,
interpretations.
(for
measured
processed,
that
is
as
and
experimental
characteristic
data
method
study
measured
into
variables
example,
interviews)
is
observations,
other
researcher
denes
Another
the
specied
denes
variable
randomly
that
the
For
and
is
what
what
methods,
methods.
is
be
made.
dened
interview
between
subjective
or
participants
cannot
that
well
used
will
dependent
could
different
questions
(as
the
characteristics
types
outline
specic.
characteristic
similar
interview
conversation
methods
using
other
other
be
participant
method
correlational
interviews
participant’
s
is
allocating
one
method
unstructured.
inferences
studies
sequence
structured
natural
is
it
characteristics
the
by
studies,
from
from
the
to
question.
method,
or
the
choose
manipulated,
of
measured
study
qualitative
different
but
be
a
the
of
is
manipulated
cause–effect
that
other
one
variable
correlational
hence
of
identify
you
this
whether
characteristic
is
clearly
that
semi-structured
experiments,
Another
to
approach
identify
independent
•
method
identication
structured,
For
need
the
can
observation,
•
you
of
that
Semi-
there
focused
is
on
a
the
qualitative
too.
Research
methods
in
psychology
197
9
ETHICS
Ethics
EXAM
PSYCHOLOGICAL
psychological
RESEARCH
research
TIP
Question
–
in
IN
2
in
Describe
paper
3
will
be
one
of
the
the
ethical
considerations
the
ethical
considerations
following
that
were
questions:
applied
in
the
study
and
explain
if
further
ethical
considerations
could
be
applied.
–
Describe
taken
CODES
The
of
into
OF
activities
ethics.
and
applying
ETHICS
AND
ETHICS
Such
within
ethics
are
(APA)
and
Ethical
when
of
psychological
in
account
psychologists
codes
have
professional
each
those
country
.
of
British
decisions
the
are
been
made
before
of
results
the
and
explain
by
codes
For
all
in
both
major
internationally
well-known
Psychological
Society
codes
of
They
Association
two
a
–
difcult
trade-offs
and
require
a
study
careful
reason,
countries
resolve
(BPS).
conducting
this
all
can
may
be
Ethical
For
example,
compromised
in
if
many
you
consideration
Informed
cases
do
not
the
use
do
their
If
should
obtained
not
be
to
ask
of
must
suffer
If
the
is
any
collected
to
published
results
the
for
the
many
as
revealed
to
on.
It
After
will
and
9—Ethics
psychologists
committees
approve
research
research
study
if
proposals.
the
following
way
the
the
study
of
relaxing
a
phenomenon
an
ethical
can
be
standard.
benet
a
study
lot
of
can
reveal
scientic
information
that
people.
in
in
must
(for
in
can
is
Deception
of
study
,
if
provided
This
of
to
means
that
study
,
what
the
participants
consent
(for
participants
they
must
be
example,
will
must
be
presented
a
be
fully
required
minor),
in
an
consent
to
familiarize
themselves
also
be
include
protected
The
form
with
contact
details
from
forms
self-esteem.
participating
all
It
in
must
the
the
should
of
of
also
study
.
consent
include
the
In
they
must
about
feel
all
researchers.
physical
be
form;
information
and
ensured
some
mental
that
cases
harm.
participants
special
do
follow-up
purpose.
elderly
is
people
not
help
too
must
as
well
should
names
in
as
the
This
but
of
terms
fact
to
on),
the
by
of
the
should
researchers
the
norm
be
and
connect
prevent
ensure
the
of
the
study
,
the
for
must
how
be
remain
from
data
results
are
identity
of
researcher
special
may
study
.
participants
how
the
that
distress
after
implications
coded)
agreement
in
identity
has
can
must
participant
participation
researcher
the
researchers
Sometimes
establish
ethical
databases
if
so
provided
able
condential
the
and
challenging.
be
be
information.
even
online
to
made
true
why
for
aim
of
data
the
the
to
study
of
justied
the
is
reported.
a
participant
from
sharing
you
the
be
both
be
deception
by
the
deleted
cannot
the
not
study
before
can
cannot
do
connect
provide
at
any
start
of
time
the
withdraw
from
all
revealed
often
purposes
has
of
obtained
your
they
study
from
information
to
a
participant’
s
name.
want
and
without
explaining
reinforced
participation
again
and
their
after
withdraw
the
end
their
records.
to
participants
to
be
the
used.
study
.
as
it
may
However
,
The
nature
of
change
their
deception
must
be
deception
must
be
as
study
.
forms,
omission
from
them
Participants
degree
after
various
to
researcher
where
withdraw
their
fully
the
survey
clear
some
and
by
is
aims
informed
participation.
their
research,
study
provide
after
Nobody
procedure.
take
must
disclosed
free
participants
may
should
example,
an
be
possible
from
informed.
the
guardians.
time
therapeutic
the
request
the
legal
this
fully
task,
anyone.
feel
must
It
to
procedure
parties.
research
with
or
(children,
the
and
for
involves
example,
the
withholding
use
of
certain
confederates,
information
a
or
false
aim
creating
of
the
study
ambiguity
and
about
the
aims.
must
when
for
anonymous
This
minimal
study
is
cases
Deception
Unit
a
of
These
met.
Potentially
Information
protecting
used
other
experimental
behaviour
.
so
or
used.
unable
consequences
case
example,
This
data—they
In
a
as
process
stored
in
information
reasons.
the
is
participants
and
third
obtained
Participants
of
any
and
data
identity
,
considerations
in
unknown
be
process.
are
which
Participation
198
are
no
and
approve
without
voluntary
withdraw
arranged
in
this
Ethical
be
groups
unexpected,
to
9.1
to
conducted
experimental
sufcient
aspects
them
Participation
Debrieng
study
be
the
parents
and
negative
must
of
will
given
to
recorded
Deception
from
given
Data
participation
data
be
such
must
participant
research
the
vulnerable
care
a
questions
includes
meetings
T
able
issues
associations
committees.
results
nature
how
This
from
of
study
the
way
.
Throughout
condentiality
the
and
aspects
Withdrawal
is
ethics
often
accessible
free
harm
in
about
Participants
and
be
cost-benet
credibility
Participation
to
Anonymity
could
deception.
informed
from
that
Explanation
consent
Protection
decide
conditions
will
analysis.
considerations
professional
have
ambiguous
There
–
involve
ethical
COMMITTEES
by
of
additional
study
.
developed
Examples
Psychological
the
ndings
regulated
associations,
American
reporting
the
be
ensured
deception
the
be
study
stored
these
is
that
participants
and
used.
questions
participants’
must
told
conducting
the
psychological
if
they
the
does
study
must
be
Participants
must
monitor
be
deception
revealed,
be
openly
well-being.
were
study
research
fully
cause
be
be
must
the
be
If
If
a
it
or
about
allowed
answered.
and
distress.
cancelled
informed
must
They
deceived
not
should
its
reasons
an
for
likely
that
a
to
its
ask
true
any
follow-up
opportunity
the
participants
follow-up
nature,
chance
necessary
,
given
is
special
to
deception
aims,
and
questions
meeting
be
be
distressed
should
how
they
should
withdraw
must
will
procedures
their
may
be
in
place.
data
have,
arranged
data.
explained.
be
the
to
Participants
ETHICAL
Ethical
study
CONSIDERATIONS
considerations
Primary
and
ndings
a
incidental.
part
of
the
those
THE
and
INDIVIDUAL
incidental
in
and
are
reporting
REPORTING
applying
AND
results
of
APPL
YING
a
include:
REPORTING
All
in
IN
research
Primary
main
aim
of
discovered
RESULTS
TO
ndings
the
–
reporting
–
publishing
–
applying
ndings
may
be
are
research.
divided
those
into
primary
discovered
Incidental
FINDINGS
the
the
The
and
risks
as
ndings
should
be
will
be
handled,
information.
and
be
able
to
comfortable
difference
to
participants
of
brain
area
in
and
For
disclosing
ndings
ndings
example,
scanning
the
of
considered.
between
well-being.
If
benets
carefully
and
scan—an
ndings
There
that
that
an
simply
could
suppose
the
researchers
incidental
is
to
participants
important
may
be
of
potentially
study
discovered
nding.
On
a
affect
one
their
the
vague
the
were
did
interest
involved
plans
the
use
dark
participant
about
this
can
help
the
informed
withdraw
about
medical
of
a
participants
if
the
plan
should
from
the
is
know
study
not
to
these
if
they
disclose
plans
do
not
feel
them.
decisions
disease.
On
and
the
possibly
other
agree
ndings
the
to
such
because
to
ndings
disclosure
to
plans
the
of
on
the
incidental
decisions
participants
incidental
participants
consent
ndings
regarding
must
be
and
information
if
they
form
were
disclosing
approved
by
(for
completely
incidental
the
ethics
committee.
hand,
making
decisions
in
these
cases
the
following
guidelines
person
prevent
hand,
incidental
communicated
unanticipated),
this
be
considered
by
the
ethics
committee:
the
–
development
not
not
will
make
even
Participants
regarding
example,
In
informing
to
unintentionally
.
benets
and
results
ndings
ndings.
this
Unanticipated
Risks
individual
the
PARTICIPANTS
ndings
study
THE
make
decisions
that
maximize
benets
and
minimize
may
harms
cause
participants
to
seek
further
diagnosis,
which
could
–
lead
to
more
costs,
anxiety
and
more
incidental
ndings.
respect
of
could
be
a
false
result;
after
all,
researchers
were
not
any
abnormalities
in
the
the
participant’
s
For
information
primary
information
ndings,
in
the
in
informed
researchers
consent
communicated
to
For
ndings,
take
consent
should
process
on
include
into
account
how
results
will
be
participants.
Examples
of
inventory
that
properly
a
researchers
should
develop
a
handling
these
and
during
the
or
not
to
know
results
the
extent
to
which
the
testing
clearly
communicate
consent
process.
It
this
is
plan
good
an
unreliable
is
is
still
in
used
an
for
testing
a
brain
scan
experimental
the
procedure
development
rst
time.
If
and
that
are
has
is
are
depression
been
performed
measurement
results
a
not
by
procedure
communicated
to
plan
in
such
cases,
they
must
be
referred
to
a
follow-
to
up
participants
know
reliable.
standardized,
participants
for
is
non-clinician,
that
incidental
to
brain.
procedure
Including
will
study
looking
–
for
a
This
diagnostic
procedure
using
a
standard
well-accepted
ethical
method.
practice
to
communicate
PUBLISHING
•
from
in
the
case
be
published
brain
of
true
to
an
it.
for
so
any
they
possible
(for
data
their
Even
If
for
must
identify
be
conclusions
them
from
sensitive
example,
to
an
study
a
the
error
is
be
It
is
in
taken
transparent
detail
independent
replication
researcher’
s
it
should
analysis
be
and
on
satised,
same
data
and
to
both
within
set.
Any
request
share
raw
parties
use
the
limits
of
data
the
data
agreed-
purposes.
Social
implications
Researchers
must
formulated
in
scientic
community
journals
inherited”
situation
they
do
but
change.
They
the
of
the
taken
popular
,
may
a
full
at
such
affect
in
be
like
mindful
have
about
on
the
This
published
audience
is
in
including
“intelligence
complexity
value
beliefs
results
conclusions
general.
are
face
public
their
may
wider
conclusions
reect
be
and
results
target
scientic
how
society
when
that
not
can
mind
conclusions
and
Blunt
become
eld
these
pertinent
non-scientists.
reporting
in
publications
effects
popular
of
keep
potential
If
the
researcher
provided
responsibly
especially
science
in
•
based
independent
ethically
,
are
to
the
described
an
and
primary
good
be
must
found
an
should
an
study
be
store
of
should
by
results
should
Rules
should
actual
cross-check
in
securely
replicable
without
research
verication.
research.
research
easily
of
obtained
way
.
procedures
are
to
to
especially
measures
researchers
in
replication:
researcher
.
be
of
actually
results,
research
obtained
that
is
way
upon
unbiased
that
incidental
participants
no
This
Publication
in
correct
dictate
of
be
individuals
was
published
data
results.
what
responsibility
how
damage).
already
Sharing
identity
should
unique
fabrication.
presented
•
The
there
studies
unusual
Data
and
participants
FINDINGS
Condentiality.
protected
•
THE
to
are
policies,
by
of
is
the
non-scientists.
resistant
for
to
example,
in
education.
Ethics
in
psychological
research
199
APPL
YING
When
can
become
and
For
THE
ndings
other
the
human
inuenced
basis
imagine
for
can
has
been
such
is
fully
environmental
change
research
treatment,
that
it
intelligence
by
dramatically
making
FINDINGS
psychological
programmes
example,
that
of
potentially
inherited
factors.
approach
we
must
be
published,
and
Such
to
that
•
lives.
cannot
the
they
So
are
It
would
before
is
well
it
not
the
following
must
be
considered
in
to
in
on
Findings
to
of
a
research
study
(that
is,
designing
a
bias,
based
on
distorted
The
extent
of
to
potential
and
generalizability
other
of
populations.
the
If
study
there
is
to
of
a
study
the
are
applicable
to
other
groups
all
study
cannot
be
used
as
a
basis
be
programme
For
this
explicit
the
the
target
research
informed
200
Unit
weaknesses
readers.
selectively
.
intervention
Neither
This
creates
programmes
will
be
replicated
by
credibility
.
independent
It
in
one
is
impossible
standalone
research
to
avoid
study
,
without
further
reason,
in
their
authors
of
description
population,
procedure
judgments
9—Ethics
about
in
the
and
the
sampling
other
details
are
valid.
must
papers
way
to
make
With
this
in
opportunities
be
to
Primary
sure
that
so
research
mind,
for
researchers
such
must
replication.
described
ensure
in
that
sufcient
the
study
detail
is
in
clear
strategy
,
that
data
should
be
stored
and
and
provided
papers
request
to
sample
enable
generalizability
.
psychological
only
preliminary
research
of
the
an
agreement.
and
hide
or
for
on
must
be
ensure
possible
replicable.
research.
results
to
the
real-life
recognized.
that
published
intervention
from
in
information.
biases
is
Procedures
contexts,
applied
explicitly
other
doubt
provide
results
be
be
it).
conclusions
contexts
can
Since
and
practical
replication
•
and
credibility.
conclusions
must
researchers
publish
of
the
applying
all
programme
terms
ndings
research
should
in
affect
limitations
for
the
researchers
results
study
directly
which
ethical
ethical
based
reason,
the
these
publication
•
this
extent
inherent
substantiated.
For
is
of
limitations
scenarios,
be
knowledge
Limitations
such
established
education.
sure
they
intervention
affect
conclusively
our
claims,
are
prevention,
research
independent
researchers
on
mutual
INDEX
biomedical
A
ability/strategy
abnormal
controversy
psychology

classiÀcation

etiology

treatment

validity
mental
disorders
and
reliability

of
as
deviation

abnormality
as
statistical
65,
of

acculturation

enculturation,

and

globalization

health

obesity
in Asian

obesity
in
migrants
obesity
in
South Asian

in

two-dimensional

research
on
typical
health
and
of
in
in
23,
of
of
acculturation
migration

neurogenesis

pruning

structural
138,
model
reciprocal
altruism
androstadienone
research

advantages

animal

ethical
15
and
disadvantages
antagonists
6,
similarity
of
animals
7
98,
99,
100–1,
articulatory
suppression
attachment
170–1
diͿusion
pluralistic

theory
styles

cultural

secure
base

theory
of
attention
103
29,
170,
satisfaction
of
basic
in
attachment
hypothesis
attachment
170,
for
173
human
children
94–5
styles
133,
activation
behavioural
game
biases
134,
172
140
89
attention
bias

common
causes

conÀrmation

framing

illusory

prospect
research
role

social

system
biological
bias
intuitive
1
bias
dismantling
eͿectiveness
brain
11
clinical
in

clinician
148,

clinician’s
of
147,
of
groups
why
do
individuals

107,
reporting
bias
87
reporting
42–3
102
on
the
on
the
eͿect
bias
for
immigrants
in
177–9
87
88
orientation
diagnosis
theory
in
British
refugees
and
development
theory
development

V
ygotsky’s
of
cognitive
egocentrism
cognitive
processing
158,
processing
world
and
45–8
processes
39–45
33–6
decision-making
cognitive
restraint
cognitive
restructuring
communication
the
29–33
cognitive
and
175
112
36–9
191,
in
signiÀcance
192
research
dimensions

on

multinational

patient–doctor
67–8
individualism
volunteer
cultural
of
collectivism
69
dimensions
individualism
conformity
and
68
collectivism
69
survey
68
communication
distance
workplace
and
behaviour
and
69–70
empowerment
in
the
70
inÁuences
70
learning
as
the
mechanism

enculturation
71

enculturation,
acculturation

and

inÁuence
of

memory
72

of
identity
of
musical
72–3
enculturation
learning
enculturation
as
on
the
musical
mechanism
71–2
64–5
styles
students
in
Chinese

US

cultural
norms
64,
65,

cultural
syndrome
87

cultural
transmission
and
66
in
70
65,
70
bilingual

individuals
66–7

inÁuence
of
culture
on
behaviour

inÁuence
of
culture
on
cognition

origin

related

reporting
bias
87
reporting
bias
for
of
Asians

192
177
inÁuence
101
190
in
191
qualitative
Hofstede’s
69
133–4
correlational
4
decision-making
cognition
memory
68,
in
161–3
in
187

48–55
theory
184,
cognitive
theory
139
45

159–61
sociocultural
variable
statistical
on
culture
cognitive
of
generalizability

42
158–9
interpretation
studies
observational
biases
collectivism
and
of
bias
eͿect
active
compete?
191
and
periods
cultural
87
or
cooperate
190
level
and
credibility
power
140
191
remapping
of
141
139–40
cooperate
level


88–9

studies
139
rehearsal
critical
87–8
89
depression
cognitive
of

cooperation
191
size
credibility
87
cognitive
of
9
140
of
141
causes
studies
Àndings
cultural
88
thinking
thinking
in
variables
schema
2
scans
101
101
theoretical

digital
patients
87,
syndrome

therapy)
108
patient

intergroup
conÁict
compete?
correlation
147
101
diagnosis
cultural

system
141
do
sampling
behaviour
resilience

reliability
87–9
and


192–3
CBT
factors
98
of
why
bias
148
97–8
CBT
cultural
models
diagnosis
correlates
identity
138–9
theory
social
149
tomography)
CBT
variables
emotion
191,
competition
game
Cave
research
axial
CBT
causality
bias

in
and
188

of
167
171–2

imaging
158

184,
170,
Robber ’s

185
(CAH)
158
validity
comfort
credibility
in
trauma
cognitive
44–5
biases
correlates
139,
techniques
of

or
121,
hyperplasia
185
correlational
using
behavioural

44
141
and
43
lack
behavioural
covert
changes
43
methods
bias
thinking
44
theory
clinical
conÁict
of
correlation

of
94–5
adrenal
120,
competition

8–11
196
Piaget’s


139,
42

brain
imaging
unresponsive

118
exclusion
publication
the
147
variables
intergroup
6–8
111
responsibility
brain
135
101
theory
eͿect
study
110,
ignorance
somatization
models
to
behaviour
146

147–8


behavioural
giving
145
146
and

1–2
of
perspective
measurement
(computerized
Asians
bereavement
and
research
(cognitive
112
B
belief
158
brain
CBT
172
133
attributional
of
CAT
circular
173
versus
variations
bias
155–8
138–41
146
144,
144–5,
counterbalancing
centration
33
171–2
attribution
of
studies
childhood
comfort
needs
102
11
mechanism

patients
factors
taking
bias
eͿect

1–2
contact
CBT
153–4
44
conÁict
biological
157
8–10

case
26
attachment

the
134–5
134
competition
hypothesis
cooperation
155
in
theory
perspective
contact
156
C
27
using
27–8
biological
antidepressants
155,
4–6
used
of
contact
cortical
research
models
humans
brain
26
considerations
of
26–7
in
1–3,
aphasia
bystander
25
models
of
Broca’s
139
the
Facebook
42,
resolution
constructs
categorization
system
techniques
139
theory
conÁict
function
examples
empathy-altruism
brain
of
construct
techniques

origins
in
136
135
144

156


examples
155,
styles
152,
and
156

attended
105
bias
aggravating
relationships
scans
cooperation
conÁict
156
neurotransmitters
151
156
that
144

relationships
brain
83,
conservation,

hypothesis
life
156
neuroplasticity
149
of
158
on
training
competition
families
accommodation
penetration
congenital
localization
7
year
158

111
social
of
in
135
attributional
155,

110,
Àrst
research
structure-function
reward
self-disclosure


structure-function
brain

of
confounding
71
38–9
role

104
36,
8
156
changes
of
patterns

developmental
155,
155,

discrimination
development
empathy-altruism
attrition

development
signal
157
of
therapy
comorbidity
106
the
of
of
155,
phoneme
comparison
altruism
extent
development
infants
in
155,
studies
family
conÀrmation
nature
brain
93
105,
106
styles

compassion
development

(rGE)
109
105,
104
changes
correlation
treatment
155
diͿerentiation
brain
acculturation
the
107–8
106
brain
tolerance
6,

74
111
animal
brain
neuroscience
workers
decision-maker
agonists
aphasia
75
(BMI)

framework
to
75
74
adaptive

USA
Portugal
model
learning

74
the
health
to
model
(BAI)
adaptations

74–5
active
animal
77–8
BPS
development
in
of
approach
Index
Index
limitations
migrants
gene-environment
drug

76
attributional
107–8
model
(blood-oxygen-level-dependent)
Hindi
of
acculturation
active
addiction
eͿects
migrants
the
percentile
empirical
82
72–3
limitations
adaptation

81
acculturation
behaviour
UAE
infrequency

into
of
correlational
81
72
research
identity
functioning
abnormality
criticism
the
brain
80
inadequate
of
BOLD
ideal
from
as
model
Mass
BMI
bottom-up
deviation


from
81
as
norms
medical
Body
83–6

abnormality
acculturation

diagnosis
health
109
Body Adiposity
96–104
80
health
obesity
criticism
of
abnormality
social
of
82–3
89–96
abnormality
of
(BPS)
biopsychosocial
80
systems
abnormality
model
biopsychosocial
158
culture
65
concepts
65
depression
in
65
65
British
88
treatment
of
disorders
103–4
Index
201
D
decision-making
adaptive
36
decision-maker

framework

biases
in
36,
38–9
decision-making
decision-making
in
42–5
bilingual
individuals

decision-making

normative

theory
of
planned
behaviour
(TPB)
theory
of
planned
behaviour
(TPB)

of
condom
dependent
depression
90–1,
gene

antidepressants

attention

brain

clusters
21,

cognitive
95,
90,
in
98–9,
CBT
of
antidepressants

eͿects

gene-environment
culture

in
criticism

negative

relapse
treatment
of
prevalence
correlation
to
cognitive
101,
bias
style
for
rates
weeks
neurotransmitters
at
8
weeks
101–2
of
network
depression
depression
deprivation
95,
national
of
factors
symptoms
in
elderly
of
eͿects
deprivation

development
of
on

attachment

brain

childhood

cognitive

eͿects

empathy

identity

inÁuences

development

role
diagnosis

36,
37,
trauma
and
99–100
in
human
peers
cognitive
and
reliability
reliability

role

sane

validity
83,
83,
mind
and
diͿerentiation
87–9
86
decline

eͿects
in

on

eͿects

learning

emotion

empathy
of
empathy
of

empathy
and
scores
over
of
cognition
52
in
sampling

inÁuence
of

cognitive
processes
induced
Index
method
animal

applying
multi-tasking
50–1
on

gender
roles

gender
schema

gender
socialization

gender
socialization
by
parents

gender
socialization
by
peers

inÁuence

processing

of

sex-determining

publishing
committees
90,
gene
148
correlation
(rGE)
23
evolutionary
explanations
in
24

evolutionary

theory
explanation
evolution
utility
theory
for
disgust
23–4
23
42,
43
185

experiment

experimental
types

independent
189–90
designs
187–8
measures
design
187,
188
93
role
91,
in
92
correlation
interaction
17,
(KO)
x
E)
90,
91
11
17,
17,
(G
19
19
19
110
gene
and
in
rats

inÁuence
of
90,
role
91,
in
vulnerability

21,
its
variations
92
168
to
stress
22
model
of
19
environment
epigenetics
19
inÁuence
genetics
of
of
on
research
genetics:
environment:
18
debate
Transracial Adoption

twin
studies
on
19

on
18
Study
heritability
20–1
of
intelligence
17
globalization
67
89–96
193
93
nature-nurture
to
research
17–18
genotypes
of
91,
expression
methods
170
gene-environment
its
90,
epigenetics
198
199
apprehension
qualitative
chromosomal
199
results
in
and
21,
niche-picking
ethics
169


168
184
depression
198–200
information
developmental

200
individual
gender
translation
19
on
theory
hormones
Kohlberg’s
gene
Falconer
and
developmental
gene
27
labelling
170
170
168

22
Àndings
gender
169
167
17
5-HTT
research
theory
169–70
for
of
168
168
167
generalizability
ob
Àndings
ethics
theory
167,
knockout
vulnerability
rats
gender
genetics
17,
of
variations
transcription
11
research
experiment
50
constancy
gene
15

of
gender
47
psychological
expected
54

gene
149–50
changes
167
chromosomal

165
119
of
identity

166
apes
19
epigenetic
10
44
gene
71–3
system
42,
gene-environment
great
density
eͿect

children
65,
47
47
196

in
34–5,
memory
46,
magnetic
imaging)
(rGE)
166
148,
groups
Áashbulb
memory
99

in
support
98,
(functional
human
beliefs
task
of
Áashbulb
gene-environment
in
beliefs
psychology
of
139
intentions
false
criticism
science
of
false
evolution
theory
5-HTT
understanding
evocative

46
46
depression
understanding
52–3
mechanism
memory
47
46


approach
neural
Áashbulb
rehearsal
151
165
of

163–4

activity
time
digital
mind
Sally-Anne
etiology
of
of
children
in
maintenance
genes
52–4

stress
formation

of
and
generalizability

ethology
eͿects
empathy
model
ethics
148
and
48
Kohlberg’s
understand
empathy-altruism
to

support
hypothesis
33,
encoding
10
empathy-altruism
empirical
determinants
focus
181
45

52
theory
memory


technology
179,
68
accuracy

164
53
and
188
digital
evaluation
on
82–3
29

etic
videogames
Manual)
163
estratetraenol
84
49–50
experience
202
147,
types
Statistical
intentions
codes
negative
empathy
diͿerent
189
to
181

gender
ability
179,
model
G
19
technology
48,
stress
133
103–4
45–8
digital
income
framing
98
67
epigenetics
48–9
51

validity
participants
multi-tasking
101–4
E
156
for
depression
19
129,
family
fMRI
85
technique
185–6
188
model
Áuoxetine
104
11
and
84,
reporting
compensating
17,
188
research
185
validity
resonance
treatment
design
reliability
103,
95–6
110,
86
responsibility
technology
6–7,
epigenetics
social
validity
places
155,
93–5
explanations
(Diagnostic
endocrine
163–6
reliability
biases
85,
96–7,
in
depression
enculturation
84–5
insane
97–8
103–4
of
quantitative
188
187,
188–9
family
89
treatment
culture
sociocultural
encoding
158–63
84
clinical
of
for
174–6
between
in


relationship
digital
177–9
174–82
play
therapy)
depression
treatment
illness
disorder
role



of
inter-rater
diͿusion
resilience
83

a
psychotherapy
energy
and
of
of


human
179–82
theory
90–3
98–101
antidepressant
sensitive

task
for
96–8
103
chimpanzee’s
167–70
on
with
psychological

155–8
development
poverty
23–4
depression
behavioural
model
double-blind
for
depression
explanations

of
of
approach
42
and
disgust
treatment
(electroencephalography)
170–3
establishing
of
cognitive
representation
development
of
CBT

(cognitive
of
187,
design
F
49
for
emic
development
of

age
validity
Áashbulb
treatment
internal

femininity
explanations
177
models
explanation
biological
culturally
sampling
familiarity
biological


in
design
50
141–4
eͿectiveness

measures
variables
89–90
treatment
pairs
repeated
cognitive
112

matched

Falconer
56,

with
deprivation

surgeons

emotion
(TADS)
178
and
EEG
177
studies
51–2
23
empathy
children
on
processes
95
91
study
cognitive
the
study
adolescents

descriptive
in
96
twin
eͿects
assessing

multi-tasking

external
evolutionary
ecological
of
of
93
depression
vulnerability
treatment
case
British
95
Swedish

in
54–5

events
and
59
discrimination
dual
16
of
learning
disgust
interaction
52
DNA methylation
depression
remission
predictors
and
videogames
direct
DSM
and
spreading
negative
processes
dopamine
of
of
93
102
role
social
life
90,
94
and

(rGE)
stressful

social
positive

onset
88
people

rates
92

social
100
95
vulnerability
response
correlates
compliance
100
90
Asians
102
of
of
adolescents
102
symptoms
to
study
reporting
neurological
disorders
101
94
cross-national
rates
model
92
patients
biological
depression
processes
disinhibition
depression
counter-arguments
genetic
as
37
100–1
theory
of
36,
42
185
91,
depressive
of
37,
94–5
changes
criticism
36,
study
technology


(DVs)
93,
5-HTT
bias
models
to
cognitive

36
37–8

of
strategy
descriptive
variables
digital

66–7
use
used
between
reliability

and
methods
65,
76

cultural
values

globalization
and
acculturation

globalization
and
cooperation

inÁuence

methods

globalization
on
group
behaviour
group
dynamics
cooperation

origins

resolution

prejudice
of
the
USA and
adolescents’
used

of
to
on
study
Canada
77–8
76–7
identity
inÁuence
behaviour
78
of
79
56–64
and
competition
conÁict
and
138–41
conÁict
144–7
and
discrimination
141–4
78
20
incidence
H
health

biological
explanations
problems
110–12
biological
processes
biopsychosocial

well-being

cognitive
craving
of
(BPS)
food
of
and
dispositional
factors
eͿectiveness
of

programmes

environmental
(HBM)
112,
variables
health
of
the
theory
(TPB)
of
(HBM)
(HBM)

eating
habits

health
beliefs
health
beliefs

adults
longitudinal
study

and
114–15
among
and
meta-analysis

obesity

models
of
obesity
and

activation

obesity
of
of
patterns
problems

problems

risk
and
rates
traits
and
behaviour
113,
116
PaciÀc
islands
120
for
obesity
of
of
problems
theory
of
planned
of
105–7
of
factors
theory
of
reasoned
of
health
of
Canada

Challenge!
health
challenges
to
the
action
Move
(TPB)
(TRA)
113,
118
118
111
against

ecological
obesity

eͿectiveness
of

programme
127

eͿectiveness
of

Schools

health
model
promotion
125
strategies
128
approach
(HPS)
127
promotion
health

the
to
health
Canada
the
Health
framework
taxes
promotion
on
the
124
Move

sensory
and

split-brain
Promoting
Schools
(HPS)
models
variables
duration
29

Áashbulb
memory

phonological

primacy

sex-determining
oxytocin
amnesia

recency

reconstructive

schema

word
eͿect
Àdelity
mice
gender
inÁuence
identity
illusory
implicit
and
social
globalization
roles
on
78
correlation
42,
44–5
correlation
prejudice
imprinting
170
of
memory
model
29,
29,
142,
and
143
stereotypes
45,
62–3
curriculum
56,
152–3
of
behaviour
48
39
memory
epidemic
in

obesity
in Asian

obesity
in
obesity
in

the

overweight
and

personality
traits
to
UAE
29,
Family

risk
and
islands
in
the
workers
obesity
and
and
120
USA
75
75
in
of
121–2
112–13
sub-groups
of
risk
of
105
factors
for
adult
123
factors
obesity
permanence
children
105
in
obesity
protective
study
in
obesity
Study
determinants
121
obesity
119
111
158
observational
learning
observations
194
of
PaciÀc
Portugal
South Asian
overweight
59,
observation
71–2
195
187
knowledgeable
56,
11,
158,
162,
175
142
rehearsal
passive
peers
45
12–13
investment
of
and
48,
51–2
4–6
of
digits
in
play
inÁuence

development

inÁuence

development

with

play
with
peer
adjustment
owl
London
in
the
taxi
brain
drivers
in
role
why
6–8
of
play
on
cognitive
peers
and
play
on
social
176
and
discussion
175
a
cognitive
more
in
early
conduct
farms
in
giving
175
and
service
children
176
from
45
129–33
communication
taking
childhood
military
in
through
other
176
relationships
perspective

egocentrism
knowledgeable
development
of
93
175
relationships

(rGE)
136
174
personal

134,
and
consequentiality
PET
5
play
personal
5–6
response
of
peers
reasoning
perspective
changes
of
peers
isolated
133,
174

anti-social
181
correlation
accommodation
development

179,
29
gene-environment
overcoming
18
model
model

30–2
4
juggling
traits
74–5
obesity
moral
156
remapping
neurotransmitters
in
obesity
more
traits
122
migrants
migrants
of
other,
adult
brain
the
of
social
debate
in
in
adolescents
prevalence
eͿect
US
personality
of
prevalence
order
the
111–12

23
correlates
structural
of
patterns
obesity
9
50–2
neuroplasticity
in
personality
obesity
patterns
57
imaging)

115
110
and
parsimonious
38
assessment
monkeys
control
in Australian
P
kindness

of


cortical
inhibitory
33
36
155,
strategies
114

oxytocin
129
36,
of
obesity
activation
overt
30–2
32–3
resonance
neuroplasticity
167–70
adolescents’
gene
out-groups
problems
selection
neurological
identity
illusory
32
2
neurogenesis
61
of
29,
treatment
107
obesity
types
105
model
of

39–41
the
115–16
and
object
32
N
61
72–3

29,
105
nature-nurture

eͿect
to
105
obesity

12–13
59,
80–2
43
promotion
and
and
study
twin
31
paradigm
48,
7–8
93
107
food
obesity
parental
(magnetic
for
beliefs
Quebec
83
multi-tasking
the
I
identity
eͿect
questions
cortex
42,
obesity
114–15
158
29–30
model
of
longitudinal
45–8
eͿect
models
multi-store
168
lacking
129
33–6
representation
multi-attribute
13
(MHC)
31
memory
group
disease
depression
128
and
181
memory
theory
micro-scale
natural
identiÀcation
29,
38
MRI
12
human
complex
similarity
29,
health

social
meta-goals
motor
and
hormones
in
gene
agency
in
153
29
eͿect
to
population
ob
37
179,
capacity
exposure
in
approach
obesity
obesity
controversy

working
Parkinson’s
37,

2
131–2

mortality
110
role
1,
29
multi-store
in
36,
obesity
of
adults
187
variables
misleading
neurotransmitters
functions
23
matching

6–7
109
costs
99
minute-by-minute
29
4

obesity
classiÀcation
68
36,
hypothesis

8
processes
105

2
68
length
7
93
meta-analysis
meditation
modularity
morbidity
oxytocin
distributed
models
behaviour
7
abnormality
models
incidence
1
orientation
matching
minimal
hormones
research
19,
versus

158
2–3
inhibitors
memory
8
6
against
1
localization
misdiagnosis


localization
1,
3
cortex
patients
mindfulness-based
127
(theory)
of
motor
1,
MAO
mere
42
11–12,
150–1
(brain)
histocompatibility
mental
126
comparison
function
major
126
107
social
localization
Promoting
127
marketing
of
relative
memory
123–4

hormones

mediating
119
health
behaviour
obesity
promotion
hippocampus
139,
maturation/learning
120–3
obesity
of


masculinity
health
119–20
model
theory
110
widely
love
prosocial
transmission
system
challenges
174
of

on
O
20–1
obesity
localization
massive

social
neurotransmitters
health
macro-scale
problems
explanations

framework
dopamine
of
romantic
43
quotient)
M
planned
health-related
health
explanations

of
role
normative
195
112–13
theory
determinants
social

selection
long-term
health-related
the
determinants
and
role

and
and
12
serotonin
niche-picking
158
attention
strict
112–19
on

of
leptin
traits
brain
the
and
of
social
Health
personality
of
in
protective
of
neurons
craving
112
study

in Australian
118
psychological
nervous
normality
thinking
weak
in
traits
psychological
115
188
loving-kindness
(TPB)
prevalence
control
165
K
117
kin
personality
power
behaviours
human
students
112
behaviour

college
obesity
variation
predicted

L
epidemic
personality
inhibitory
164,
195–6
(intelligence
joint
116–7
111–12

and
163,
healthy
113
health-related
behaviour
holism
113,
and
114

information
of
biopsychosocial
115–16
obesity

J
model
heuristics
IQ
eͿects
planned
model
heuristic
intuitive
model
118
112,
food
validity
irreversibility
belief
observed
for
174
reading
interviews
120
belief

limitations
56
hormones
neurotransmitters
dopamine
69
of

68
transcripts
belief
twin
internal
113
68,
control
intentions,
185
56–64
favouritism
craving
115
promotion
health
health
control
110
(IVs)
59
behaviour
indulgence
inhibitory
inhibitory
health
the
learning
in-group
health

and
117
behaviour

health
123–8
of
evaluation

of
119
health


model
variables
individualism
111
113

evaluation
addiction
113,
variables
for
indirect
health
individual
107–9,
determinants
of
comparison
105
independent
105
133–6
change
or
end
136–8
174
taking
and
perspective
147
(positron
phenotypes
emission
tomography)
10
17
Index
203
pheromones
ability
to
signal
androstadienone
gender

biology
of

criticism

eͿects

Àeld

pheromone
human
to
men
experiment
phonological
development
of

criticism

three
play
a
of
159,
the
96,
synthetic
eͿect
validity
179–80

Great

isolating
32
Smoky
task
task
149
188
39
23
Mountains
eͿects
of
variables
outcomes
pathways

UK
distance
Cohort
index
power
validity
141–2

guilty
by

implicit
association
37,

implicit
prejudice
142

implicit
prejudice
and

out-group
implicit
size
rates
and
of
eͿect
rates
29,
compassion

eͿectiveness
rates
gun

visual
store
of
45,
health
problems
105–7
138,
149–50
of
152,
Good
153–4
Samaritan
law
152
151
hypothesis
151
152
selection
theory
loving-kindness
meditation
mindfulness-based

curriculum

promoting

psychological

support
150
129
cognitive
communication

cross-cultural

essential

familiarity

Àve-stage

breakdown

Four
explanations

matching

proximity

relational

relationship

similarity-attraction

social
factors

social
proof
explanations
theory
43
factors

obesity

obesity

overweight
129,
120,
of
of
131
mate
preferences
130
apocalypse
136–7
131–2
132
and
satisfaction
dissolution
on
138
Facebook
hypothesis
ethics
experiment
198–200
185–90

identifying
research

quantitative

sampling,
and
method
qualitative
credibility
,
generalizability
who
lost
homes
youth
33,
factors
120,

obesity
121

obesity

overweight
in
Family
122
obesity
in
children
tradition
phenomena
121–2
96–7,
bias
108
98
(post-traumatic
human
82
107,
stress
disorder)
178
98
pheromones
14,
15–16
in
of
Sierra
Study
obesity
in
of
children

bias
in
qualitative

case
studies

credibility
risk

sampling
in
quantitative
factors

focus

generalizability

interviews

observations

sampling

speciÀc
groups
research
qualitative
research
193
methods
research
in
research
194
194–7
183
quantitative
Index

illusory

self-fulÀlling
research
of
on
behaviour
stereotypes
correlation
45,
62–3
prophecy
categorization
in
63
62
62,
the
64
formation
of
63
stereotype
added
threat
62,
64
119
goals
synaptic
plasticity
system
and
139
4
system
2
thinking
42–3
population
of
185
8
163

animal

children
studies
163

empathy
and
163
theory
theory
of
planned
theory
of
reasoned
theory
of
unresponsive
of
mind
behaviour
action
163–4
(TPB)
(TRA)
36,
37–8
118
behaviour
147
36–9

biases
in
thinking
42–5

intuitive
thinking
43

system
and
1
system
adaptations
PTSD

PTSD
2
thinking
42–3
104
Study
20–1
177
178
in
children
living
antidepressants
in
the
(TCA)
Gaza
strip
99
185–6
eͿects
of
social

gender

schemas
inÁuence
encoding

schemas
inÁuence
retrieval

self-schemas

social
schema
33,
secure
base
34,
36
schemas
theory
35
169
of
false
index
68
beliefs
163,
165,
166
181,
185,
187
34,
133,
validity
diagnosis

37,
83
83–6
120,
152,
variables
variables
120,
179,
185
181
49–50
sociocultural
support
theory
for
theory
evaluation
V
ygotsky’s
of
158–9,
161–2
V
ygotsky’s
sociocultural
theory
121,
162
sociocultural
163
64
W
2
W
ernicke’s
170
word
hypothesis
orientation
bias
social
categorization
social
cognitive
eͿect
memory
1–2
29,
32
model
29,
32–3
68
hypothesis
Z
131
141
56,
theory
aphasia
length
working
93
zone
social
and
113,
mediating
empirical
7
aggression
88,


distress
87,
confounding
172
134–5
62,
of

61
prophecy
serotonin
validity

V
ygotsky’s
170,
57
cortex
predictive
videogames
35
36
hypothesis
59,
188–9

variables
34–5
35
34
schemas
scripts

avoidance
understanding
validity


uncertainty
185–6
V
scripts
similarity-attraction
194–5
qualitative
stereotypes
158
of
short-term
195–6
in
141
formation

adult
33–4
serotonin
196
in
62,
of
reuptake
99

for
194
research
eͿects
separation
192
research

sensory
qualitative
90,
U
qualitative
self-fulÀlling
192–3
196
in
6,
2–3
serotonin
eͿects
trauma
123
in
self-esteem
183
research
8
patients

121–2
184
self-e΀cacy
research
88–9
T
ransracial Adoption
122
obesity
sampling
self-disclosure
Q
qualitative
87,
mind
121
and
152–4
149–51
65
(selective
thinking
adolescents
behaviour
behaviour
resolution
top-down
and
scaͿolding
132
psychotherapy
prosocial
theory
101–2

schemas
adolescents
and

147–9
resolution
35
risk
57–8
134
prosocial
temporal
139
68
promoting
target
179
retrieval

and
179
war-aͿected
2
60–1
theory
183
177
children
and
1
T
197
research
184
98,
responsibility
theory
bystanderism
1
140
65

social
139,
133
superordinate

in
social
sugar,
183
bushÀres
proof

132
101–2
in
social
stereotypes
133
rates
penetration
137
131
experiments
learning
stereotypes
relationship
129,
group
social
inhibitors)
56–7
competition
59
social
split-brain
130
and
learning
spatial
61
57
theory
social
somatization
137
of
history
restraint
identity
56,
mathematics
56
cooperation
socialization
131
relationship
hypothesis
rates
social
SSRIs

sampling
150–1
121
psychosomatic
204
attraction
129,
133
model
response
identity
in
60–1
S
152–4
121
sampling
of
attraction
133–6
study
methods
Quebec
152
selection
psychoanalytic

of
understanding
Horse
overweight
behaviour
variables
kin
quantitative
102

Leone
comparison
social
theory
170
59
determinism
learning
minimal
60,
learning
social
tricyclic
prosocial
129,
110
152–3
for
in
(rCBF)
47

153
kindness
41
Áow
biological
resources
31
blood
101,
resilience
social

41
107
rates
reciprocal
evaluation
40
task
experiment

39–40


89
60–1
study
recognition
Australian
disorder
training
study
incentives
a
study
robbery
cerebral
resilience
rate
89
of
empathy-altruism
putative
144
139
59,
memory
eyewitness
resilience
behaviour
publication
143
prejudice
prevalence
prevalence
prevalence

PTSD
eͿect
theory
doll



research
Obama
140
39

90
prevalence
proximity
determinism
bias
inÁuencing
prevalence
protective
the
139,
31
reciprocal
remission
143
142
intergroup
90
prospect
180
89
depression
kin
179,
181–2
70
bias
tests
of
Elaine
68,
racial
study
prosocial
poverty
83
cross-national
estimates
delayed
112
prejudice
factors
of
and
Study
(PDI)
predictive
prevalence
from
181

and
182
income
poverty
181
Millennium
Study
family
between
primacy
29,
Bobo
observational
163
(RCT)
altruism
rehearsal
160
148,
mediators
point
eͿect
regional
160
theory
reciprocal
relapse
associated
period
recency
reductionism
mountains
development

29,
159–60
information
poverty
predictive
conÁict
paradigm
39
recognition
human
161
three
ignorance
reasoning

16
98
post-hoc
power
realistic
relationships
population

research
women’s
174–6
post-event
imitation
reconstructive
tasks
mountains
pluralistic

on
15
with
rational
recall
cognitive
158,
conservation
eͿects
15
14
15–16

placebo
estratetraenol
pheromone
similarity
theory
and
attractiveness
androstadienone
attraction
Piaget’s
and
pheromones
of
of

R
14
of
62,
63,
140
59
self-e΀cacy
in
children
61
of
proximal
development
158,
161–2
178
O X
F O
R
D
I B
S
T
U
D
Y
G
U
I D
E
S
Psychology
Author
F O R
T H E
I B
D I P L O M A
Alexey Popov
Fully comprehensive, this focused study tool ensures complete
understanding of all the key concepts at SL and HL . Designed to
concretely build confidence, integrated exam guidance suppor ts
excellence in assessment.
O xford IB Study Guides build exceptional assessment potential.
You can trust them to:
●
Comprehensively cover the syllabus, matching IB specifications
●
Reinforce all the key topics in a concise, user-friendly format,
cementing understanding
●
Effectively prepare students for assessment with revision
suppor t and exam strategies
●
Use clear and straightforward language to
suppor t E AL learners
Challenging material stretches
learners to their full potential
Suppor ting course book ,
developed in cooperation
with the IB
9780198398110
A focused approach improves
comprehension and
strengthens performance
How
1
to
get
in
contact:
web
www.oxfordsecondary.co.uk/ib
email
schools.enquiries.uk@oup.com
tel
+44
(0)1536
452620
fax
+44
(0)1865
313472
IS B N
9
9 7 8 -0 -1 9 -8 3 9 8 1 7 -2
780198
398172