IB Psychology SL — All Flashcards

A tendency to see or report things in a way that is not fully objective — a tilt away from the truth.

Judging based on facts, not on personal feelings or expectations.

When the people studied don't represent the wider group you want to describe.

When a researcher's expectations shape how they run or interpret a study.

When people change their behaviour because they know they are being studied.

Noticing evidence that fits what you expect and ignoring evidence that doesn't.

When mostly positive results get published, hiding the studies where nothing happened.

It threatens objectivity, so the findings become less trustworthy.

Use a double-blind design so neither the participant nor the tester knows the condition.

Bias — alongside causality, measurement and responsibility.

Judging or measuring one culture by the standards of another.

Seeing your own culture as the normal or correct one, and judging others by it.

Studying a culture from the inside, on its own terms and in its own concepts.

Comparing cultures from the outside using shared, general measures.

Using a method built in one culture on another as if it were neutral for everyone.

It makes conclusions unfair and can cause real harm, like wrong diagnoses or unfair testing.

Use emic methods, local researchers, and translate then back-translate the measure.

Translating a measure into a language and back again to check the meaning survived.

Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic — over-used and wrongly treated as universal.

Bias (mainly) and perspective (one culture's viewpoint treated as the truth for all).

Research treating one gender unfairly — as better, worse, or the default.

Exaggerating the differences between genders, often locking in stereotypes.

Ignoring or minimising real gender differences, often by studying one gender and applying it to all.

Treating male behaviour as the normal standard for everyone.

Testing a heart drug only on men, then giving it to everyone at the same dose.

It damages validity and can cause real harm — unfair theories, wrong doses, stereotypes as science.

Use a balanced sample of all genders and report results for each group.

A researcher reflecting on how their own views might shape the study.

'Treating everyone the same' ignores real differences, which can quietly disadvantage the untested group.

Alpha exaggerates gender differences; beta ignores them.

Protecting objectivity, so findings reflect the truth and can be trusted.

It makes the sample mirror the wider group, so results generalise — fixing sampling bias.

Giving every participant the same instructions and conditions, so differences don't creep in.

Neither the participant nor the tester knows the condition — reduces participant and researcher bias.

A researcher reflecting on how their own views might shape the study.

Others repeat the study; a one-off, biased result usually fails to repeat.

Emic methods, local researchers, and translating then back-translating the measure.

A balanced sample of all genders, with results reported for each group.

Posting the plan before data collection — reduces publication bias, so failures can't vanish.

Match the fix to the bias, and explain why it restores objectivity.

A finding that two things tend to change together (rise or fall in step).

When one thing actually makes another happen — a stronger claim than correlation.

Two things can move together without one causing the other, so causal claims need more than a correlation.

A hidden factor that causes both correlated things (e.g. hot weather → ice cream + drownings).

When the causal direction is the opposite of what was assumed — B causes A, not A causes B.

A controlled experiment — it changes one variable while holding others constant.

It cannot rule out third variables or reverse causation, or control other factors.

More churches ↔ more crime (both driven by a bigger population — a third variable).

Causality — one of the four named concepts for Paper 2 Section B.

Spotting a real link that is worth testing properly with an experiment.

The one thing the researcher changes on purpose to see its effect.

The thing the researcher measures to see the effect of the IV.

By changing the IV while holding everything else constant, so any change in the DV is due to the IV.

A group that does not get the IV, used as a comparison.

Assigning participants to groups by chance, so the groups start out similar.

It spreads third variables evenly across groups, so they can't explain the result.

Other factors that could affect the DV; they must be controlled (kept equal).

Confidence that the IV — and nothing else — caused the change in the DV.

The experiment controls other factors and uses random allocation, ruling out third variables and reverse causation.

Causality — established through controlled experiments.

One where two things each cause the other, not just one direction.

A cycle where each thing makes the other stronger, repeating over time.

Stress and sleep — stress worsens sleep, and poor sleep worsens stress.

They show a simple, one-way 'A causes B' is often too simple for real behaviour.

Low mood leads to withdrawing, and withdrawing deepens low mood — each feeds the other.

Don't just say 'unclear direction' — explain it may run both ways in a feedback loop.

You can break any part of the loop (e.g. improve sleep) to slow the whole cycle.

Bidirectional: the two things cause each other. Third variable: a hidden factor causes both.

Causality — showing cause is not always one-way.

Not a line, a loop — the arrow points both ways.

Changes in the brain and body over time — from maturation, experience, hormones or injury.

The gradual development of the brain and body on a rough biological timetable.

The brain reshaping its connections in response to experience (e.g. practice).

The hormone surge at puberty, which reshapes body, brain and mood.

Through plasticity, healthy areas can slowly take over some functions of the damaged area.

Maturation and practice are gradual; a hormone surge or brain injury can change behaviour suddenly.

It is a main engine of how and why behaviour changes over time.

Neuroplasticity (practice strengthens pathways) and maturation (planning regions develop).

A brain is a builder, not a statue.

Change — one of the six core concepts.

A lasting change in what someone does, driven by learning and experience.

Through conditioning — linking cues and outcomes (classical and operant).

Repeating an action in the same situation until it becomes automatic.

Deliberately using rewards and consequences to change behaviour.

A sticker chart that rewards a child each time they tidy up.

Because behaviour is learned, it can be re-learned — the basis of many therapies.

Gradual exposure for phobias, or replacing cues and rewards to break a habit.

Behavioural = learning reshapes what you do; biological = the brain/body itself changes.

Learning (conditioning), habit formation, and behaviour modification.

Change — one of the six core concepts.

Measuring the same behaviour at more than one time point and comparing.

Measure a behaviour, do something, then measure again to see if it shifted.

Testing the same people several times so each person is their own comparison.

Following the same people over months or years, measuring repeatedly.

Improving on a test simply because you have taken it before, not from real change.

To rule out changes everyone experiences (season, ageing, events).

Extreme scores drifting back toward average on a retest, with no real change.

Consistent (reliable) measure, a comparison group, and a change big enough to matter.

Change can only be shown by comparing the same behaviour across time.

Change — one of the six core concepts.

Defining a variable by the exact way it will be measured.

e.g. the number of words correctly recalled in two minutes.

Quantitative = numbers to compare; qualitative = words and meaning for depth.

Asking people directly — questionnaires, rating scales, interviews.

Watching and recording what people actually do.

People may be dishonest or inaccurate about their own behaviour or feelings.

You see behaviour but not the thoughts or feelings behind it.

If different measures agree, the finding is more trustworthy.

No — it is a measure of stress, not stress itself.

Measurement — one of the six core concepts.

The consistency of a measure — the same result under the same conditions.

Giving the same test to the same people twice; stable scores mean it is reliable over time.

Different observers rating the same behaviour and closely agreeing.

Questionnaire items meant to measure one thing giving similar answers.

A scale that always reads 5 kg heavy: consistent, but consistently wrong.

A measure can be consistent yet consistently measure the wrong thing.

Train the observers and use a clear, agreed coding scheme.

That the thing being measured has not really changed between the two tests.

Reliability = consistent; validity = measuring the right thing.

Measurement — one of the six core concepts.

Whether a measure or study actually captures what it claims to measure.

Whether the measure captures the actual concept, not something else.

Whether an effect is really due to the manipulation, not a confound.

Whether findings generalise to real-life settings, not just the lab.

Reliability = consistent; validity = measuring the right thing.

Measuring 'intelligence' by mouse-clicking speed — that captures reaction time, not intelligence.

Tight lab control aids internal validity but can make the setting artificial, hurting ecological validity.

A confound — another variable that could explain the effect (e.g. no control group).

Yes — it can give consistent results while measuring the wrong thing.

Measurement — one of the six core concepts.

A viewpoint or level of explanation used to understand behaviour.

The body — brain, genes, hormones and chemicals.

Mental processes — memory, attention, thinking and beliefs.

The social world — other people, groups, culture and norms.

Body, mind, world.

No — they operate at different levels and complement each other.

Stress hormones and an over-active stress response keep the body alert.

A noisy environment or exam-season pressure disrupts sleep.

Each sees a different part of the picture, so together they explain more.

Perspective — one of the six core concepts.

Understanding behaviour from inside a culture, on its own terms and meanings.

Studying behaviour from outside, comparing across cultures with general categories.

Judging another culture by your own culture's standards, treating yours as the norm.

Emic = insider meaning; etic = outsider comparison.

Calling a culture's customs 'backward' just because they differ from your own.

You may miss local meaning and slip into ethnocentrism.

It becomes hard to compare across cultures.

Its questions assume one culture's norms, so others are judged by the wrong standards.

Combine etic comparison with emic understanding, and adapt measures to local meaning.

Perspective — one of the six core concepts.

Participants' wellbeing comes before the study's results — people before data.

Agreeing to take part knowing what the study involves (a guardian consents for children).

Not exposing participants to lasting physical or psychological harm.

Keeping data private and anonymous so individuals cannot be identified.

Being able to stop and leave, and remove your data, at any time without penalty.

Telling participants the true aim after the study and checking they are okay.

When it is justified, causes no real harm, and is followed by a full debrief.

People may act differently if they know the aim, so mild deception keeps behaviour natural.

A parent or legal guardian.

Responsibility — one of the six core concepts.

To control conditions and study processes that would be impossible or unethical in humans.

Replace (non-animal methods), Reduce (fewest animals), Refine (minimise suffering).

Use non-animal methods — models, cell studies, human scans — wherever possible.

Use the smallest number of animals that still gives valid results.

Adjust procedures to minimise pain and distress (housing, pain relief, humane handling).

Benefits must clearly outweigh the animals' suffering, with ethics-committee approval.

They cannot understand or agree, so responsibility falls entirely on the researchers.

It can reveal mechanisms that would be impossible or unethical to study in humans.

Animals cannot consent and can suffer, so their use must be strictly limited.

Responsibility — one of the six core concepts.

The duty to report findings honestly and consider how the knowledge is used in society.

Presenting results accurately, with limitations, without exaggeration or hiding findings.

Average group differences are not fixed truths about any individual.

Anticipating how findings could justify harm and framing them to limit that risk.

Because how findings are reported and used can help or harm society.

A measure valid in one culture may unfairly lower another group's scores.

Twisting a small study into a sweeping claim to justify discrimination.

No — it is an average and says nothing definite about any one person.

State the real size and limits of a finding so it is not exaggerated.

Responsibility — one of the six core concepts.

Using an animal to study a process that also happens in humans, because of shared biology.

Shared biology, tighter control, testing risky methods safely first, and faster life cycles.

To apply a result from one group (the animals) to another (humans) — done with caution.

Animals and humans share a lot but also differ, so a result may not fully transfer.

Replacement (use another method), Reduction (fewer animals), Refinement (less suffering).

Using a non-animal method instead of animals wherever possible, such as computer or cell studies.

Using as few animals as possible while still getting clear results.

Changing how animals are treated to reduce any pain or suffering.

Weighing the harm a study causes animals against the good it may do, before it is allowed.

Responsibility — researchers have power over the animals and must protect their welfare.

It allows tightly controlled studies and lets risky methods be tested safely before humans.

Animals can suffer and cannot give consent, so the harm may not always be justified.

Explaining something complex by breaking it down into simpler parts.

Explaining behaviour using its simplest biological parts — brain areas, chemicals and genes.

Explaining behaviour by looking at the whole person and their situation, including thoughts, environment and culture.

Explaining it only by low activity of a neurotransmitter and treating it with a medicine.

It is precise and testable — a small biological question can be measured, which has led to real treatments.

It can oversimplify by ignoring thoughts, environment and culture, so one cause rarely explains a whole behaviour.

Perspective — it is one way of looking at behaviour, raising whether a single perspective is ever enough.

Because it can treat behaviour as fixed by biology, reducing the sense of choice.

A smaller, biological question is easier to measure and test than a big, messy one.

Reductionism: explain by the simplest parts. Holism: explain by the whole person and situation.

Not wrong — useful and precise, but often incomplete on its own.

When combined with a more holistic view, so precision and the bigger picture work together.

Techniques that show the structure or activity of the living brain, such as fMRI, EEG and PET.

Blood flow to show which brain areas are active — good spatial detail (where).

Electrical activity via the scalp — excellent timing (when), poor location.

A radioactive tracer to map activity or chemicals; shows function but is invasive.

fMRI is strong on location, weak on timing; EEG is the reverse.

Objective, measurable data on the living brain, often non-invasive.

It shows activity correlated with a task, not that the area caused the behaviour.

Lying still in a noisy scanner is artificial and unlike real-life behaviour.

No — it shows correlation; reverse or third-variable explanations still apply.

Measurement — it makes invisible brain activity measurable.

A chemical the brain or body uses to carry a signal that affects behaviour — a neurotransmitter or a hormone.

A chemical that carries a signal across the synapse (gap) between two nerve cells.

A chemical messenger carried in the blood to affect the body; slower but longer-lasting than a neurotransmitter.

The tiny gap between two nerve cells that a neurotransmitter crosses.

A part of a cell that a chemical messenger fits into, like a key in a lock, to pass on the signal.

It is released, crosses the synapse, and fits a receptor on the next cell; left-over is cleared by reuptake.

Dopamine — released in the reward pathway, giving pleasure and making a behaviour more likely to repeat.

Causality — a chemical is linked to a behaviour, but a link is not proof that it causes the behaviour.

The two occur together, but the behaviour could cause the chemical change, or a third factor could cause both.

Indirectly — e.g. by giving a drug that changes its level and watching behaviour, or by brain imaging.

It is precise and testable, and has led to real treatments such as medicines for low mood.

Behaviour usually involves many chemicals, and a link is often only a correlation, not proof of cause.

A disorder results from a vulnerability (diathesis) combined with environmental stress (a trigger).

A predisposition or vulnerability — genes, brain chemistry, early experience — that raises risk.

A triggering life event or ongoing strain that can tip a vulnerable person over.

The interaction — stress exceeding what the person's vulnerability can withstand.

Their vulnerabilities differ, so the stress crosses the threshold for some but not others.

Less — high vulnerability can be triggered by only mild stress.

It combines nature and nurture, avoiding a one-sided explanation.

Vulnerability is hard to measure and the threshold for 'enough' stress is vague.

No — without enough stress, the disorder may never appear.

Causality — the cause is an interaction of vulnerability and stress.

The idea that some behaviour is passed down in our genes, not only learned from the environment.

A section of DNA that carries instructions passed from parents to children.

An inherited tendency that makes a behaviour or condition more likely — not certain.

How often both twins share a trait — used to compare identical and non-identical twins.

If identical twins (who share ~all genes) share a trait more than non-identical twins (~half), genes probably matter.

How much of the difference in a trait across people is linked to genes. It is almost never 100%.

Genes and environment working together — an inherited tendency may only appear if life events trigger it.

Causality — a trait can run in families, but genes, shared environment, or both could cause it.

Families share both genes AND an environment, so the pattern does not prove genes are the cause.

Twin and family studies give a clear way to estimate a genetic influence and explain traits that run in families.

Identical twins usually share an environment too, so genes and environment are hard to separate; a link is not proof of cause.

They compare children with their biological and adoptive families, helping separate genes from upbringing.

The idea that specific brain areas carry out specific jobs or behaviours.

Damage to a part of the brain — often used as evidence for what that area does.

If damage to a specific area is followed by the loss of a specific ability, that area was probably needed for it.

A scan can show which area becomes active during a task, pointing to where the job is done.

Producing fluent speech; damage can leave a person unable to speak fluently while still understanding others.

Causality — damage-then-loss suggests an area is needed for an ability, but activity alone is not proof of cause.

Brain damage and imaging give clear, testable links between an area and a function.

Many behaviours use several areas together, so functions are often shared, not fixed to one spot.

Because other areas can sometimes take over a job, so a function is not permanently fixed to one area.

They are often one patient, so the finding may not generalise to everyone.

E.g. occipital lobe — vision; motor cortex — movement; amygdala — emotion/fear.

No — it shows the area is active and likely involved, not that it alone causes the behaviour.

The brain's ability to change and reorganise — connections grow and strengthen with experience, or reroute after damage.

When connections that are used repeatedly become stronger and faster.

Removing connections that are rarely used — 'use it or lose it'.

Practising fires the same connections again and again, so they strengthen and the skill becomes automatic.

Healthy areas can slowly take over some jobs of a damaged area, so lost abilities can partly return.

Change — behaviour and the brain change together through experience, rather than being fixed.

Brain imaging can show real, physical changes after practice, and it explains recovery after injury.

It is hard to prove practice alone caused the change, since many life factors change at once.

Plasticity tends to slow with age, so change is not equally easy for everyone.

No — rewiring can also strengthen unhelpful habits, so change is not always positive.

Connections you use are strengthened; connections you don't use are pruned away.

No — imaging shows that a change occurred, not exactly what caused it.

How neurons pass signals using electrical impulses and chemical messengers across a synapse.

Impulse fires, neurotransmitters release, bind to receptors, then are cleared (reuptake/breakdown).

The tiny gap between two neurons that neurotransmitters cross.

A site on the receiving neuron where a matching neurotransmitter binds.

Leftover neurotransmitter being taken back into the sending neuron, resetting the synapse.

By blocking reuptake, so a neurotransmitter stays active in the synapse longer.

Within = electrical impulse; between = chemical neurotransmitters.

Precise, evidence-based, and explains how many medicines work.

It can be reductionist and ignores thoughts, environment and social context.

Causality — chemical signals are a physical cause of behaviour.

A mental framework of knowledge, built from experience, that organises information and guides expectations.

The cognitive approach — it explains behaviour through mental processes.

We attend more to schema-consistent information and may ignore what doesn't fit.

Recall reconstructs the event using the schema, adding expected details and dropping inconsistent ones.

Recalling books in an office that were never there, because the 'office' schema expects them.

Strong experimental support and wide application (memory, stereotypes, education).

Schemas can't be measured directly and the theory is vague on how they form or change.

Bias — memory is reconstructed, so expectations distort it.

A reconstruction — we rebuild events using schemas, not replay a recording.

Schemas can add vivid, expected details that feel real but never happened.

Learning by linking two things, so a once-neutral cue comes to trigger a response on its own.

A cue that causes no special reaction at first, like a beep before it means anything.

Something that triggers a reflex naturally, with no learning needed, like food.

The natural reflex to the UCS, like the mouth watering at food.

The once-neutral cue that now triggers the response after pairing, like the learned beep.

The learned reaction to the CS, like the mouth watering at the beep alone.

The stage where the cue and the natural trigger are paired again and again until the link is learned.

When the CS keeps appearing without the UCS, so the learned response slowly fades.

A faded learned response returning after a rest, even after extinction.

Reacting to cues that are similar to the conditioned stimulus, like a different beep.

Ivan Pavlov, who noticed his dogs drooled at a signal that came before their food.

Explaining learned fears (phobias): a harmless thing paired with a scary event can become frightening.

Learning in which the consequences of a behaviour make it more or less likely to be repeated.

Adding something pleasant after a behaviour, which increases it.

Removing something unpleasant after a behaviour, which increases it.

Adding something unpleasant after a behaviour, which decreases it.

Removing something pleasant after a behaviour, which decreases it.

Reinforcement increases behaviour; punishment decreases it.

Punishment suppresses behaviour but doesn't teach a better one, and can cause fear or resentment.

Operant = learning from consequences of behaviour; classical = linking two stimuli.

It ignores thoughts, emotions and social meaning, and much evidence is from animals.

Causality — a consequence causes future behaviour to change.

A simplified representation of how a mental process works, used to describe, predict and test it.

Because mental processes can't be seen directly; a model makes them concrete and testable.

Sensory memory, short-term memory, and long-term memory.

Attention — we transfer what we attend to.

Rehearsal (repetition).

By usefulness — whether they predict findings and guide research — not only by being fully true.

They turn invisible processes into testable predictions and generate experiments.

They oversimplify and can treat the mind too much like a computer.

No — the boxes and arrows are a useful description, not real physical parts.

Measurement — a model makes an invisible process concrete enough to study.

The idea that thinking uses two systems — fast, automatic System 1 and slow, effortful System 2.

Fast, automatic, effortless thinking — instant judgements and routine tasks.

Slow, deliberate, effortful thinking — logic, reasoning and new problems.

System 1 shortcuts that answer before System 2 checks.

The bat-and-ball puzzle: System 1 says '10p', but the answer is 5p.

System 1 shortcuts are usually helpful and fast; they only mislead in tricky situations.

It explains a huge range of biases and is supported by reasoning and reaction-time studies.

The 'two systems' may be a metaphor, not two literal parts of the brain.

No — it is fast and usually right; the skill is knowing when to slow down.

Bias — System 1 shortcuts produce systematic errors.

The tendency to seek, notice and remember information that fits existing beliefs and ignore what contradicts them.

Biased search, biased attention, and biased memory.

Believing a supplement works by noticing good days and forgetting bad ones.

Actively seek disconfirming evidence — ask 'what would prove this false?'

No — the filtering is mostly automatic (System 1), so it's hard to notice.

People seek sources that agree with them and dismiss those that don't.

Robust across many studies and explains stereotypes, poor decisions and echo chambers.

It describes a tendency that varies, more than it explains the exact cause.

Comparing belief vs no-belief conditions stops us counting only confirming cases.

Bias — expectations distort which evidence we use.

Relying too heavily on the first piece of information (the anchor) when making a judgement.

The first value or piece of information that becomes a reference point for a judgement.

We adjust from it but not far enough, so the answer stays pulled towards it.

A high 'original' price makes a sale price feel like a bargain.

Yes — even numbers known to be random still shift people's estimates.

A high opening offer anchors the final price higher (and vice versa).

Replicated in many experiments, even with random anchors.

Effect size varies and it describes the pattern more than the exact mechanism.

Form your own estimate before seeing anyone else's number.

Bias — an irrelevant first value distorts judgement.

Learning depends on the limited capacity of working memory, which can be overloaded.

The difficulty of the material itself.

Wasted load caused by poor presentation — clutter, confusing layout, distractions.

The useful effort of building understanding and connecting ideas into long-term memory.

Working memory can only hold a few items; too much and it can't be processed.

Cut extraneous load, keep intrinsic load manageable, and support germane load.

No — you can only manage load; capacity itself is fixed.

It directly improves teaching, instructions and design, backed by memory research.

The three load types are hard to measure separately and optimal load varies by person.

Measurement — the theory rests on the measurable limits of working memory.

Part of our self-concept comes from group membership, which shapes how we see and treat others.

Social categorisation, social identification, and social comparison.

Sorting people into in-groups ('us') and out-groups ('them').

Adopting the identity, norms and values of a group we belong to.

Comparing our group favourably with others to boost self-esteem.

Favouring our own group over others — a form of bias.

Even trivial group divisions trigger in-group favouritism.

Supported by minimal-group and real-world studies; explains prejudice and teamwork.

Lab studies can be artificial, and it underplays individual differences.

Bias — group membership tilts judgements towards 'us'.

Studying behaviour from outside a culture, using general categories to compare across cultures.

Etic = outside, to compare cultures; emic = inside, on the culture's terms.

Standardised measures applied the same way across cultures.

Applying one culture's measure everywhere as if it were neutral — a route to ethnocentrism.

It allows direct comparison across cultures and can reveal possible universals.

It can impose one culture's categories and miss local meaning.

By checking that measures mean the same thing in each culture (and adding emic depth).

Giving the same memory test in ten countries and comparing the scores.

Etic gives comparison; emic gives meaning — together they balance out.

Perspective — it takes the outsider's viewpoint.

We learn behaviour by observing and imitating others, especially role models.

Attention, Retention, Reproduction, Motivation (ARRM).

Learning to expect a reward by seeing someone else rewarded for a behaviour.

A person whose behaviour we observe and are likely to imitate, often high-status or similar to us.

When we identify with them — similar, admired or high-status people.

It adds mental steps (attention, memory, motivation) between stimulus and response.

A child copying a parent's phrases, or a teen imitating an admired influencer.

Explains language, aggression, gender roles and media effects, with observational evidence.

It can't fully predict who imitates and may underplay biology and choice.

Causality — observing a model can cause new behaviour.

Changing your behaviour or opinions to match those of a group.

Conforming to be accepted and avoid standing out, even when privately unsure.

Conforming because you think the group knows better, especially when unsure.

A larger group, a unanimous majority, and public responses.

Even one dissenting ally who breaks the unanimity.

Picking the same answer as the group even when you think it's wrong.

No — following sensible norms (queueing, safety) is useful; the concern is overriding good judgement.

Some classic tasks are artificial and conformity varies by culture and era.

Some cultures value fitting in more, so conformity levels differ.

Bias — group pressure can bend judgement away from independent thought.

Changing your behaviour in response to a direct request from another person.

Starting with a small request so a later, bigger request is more likely to be accepted.

Starting with a large request that's refused, so the smaller real request seems reasonable.

Getting agreement on a good deal, then revealing added costs; people often stick with it.

Giving something first so the person feels obliged to give back.

People want to act consistently with a commitment they've already made.

Compliance = a request; conformity = a group; obedience = an authority's order.

Demonstrated in many field and lab studies; explains sales, charity and marketing.

Effects vary by person/culture, some raise ethical concerns, and they can backfire if obvious.

Causality — the way a request is framed causes agreement.

The uncomfortable tension felt when beliefs and behaviour conflict, motivating us to reduce it.

Change the behaviour, change the belief, or add justifying thoughts.

Changing the belief to fit the action, because it's easier than undoing the action.

A small reward for acting against a belief causes more attitude change than a big one.

It gives an external justification, so there's less dissonance to resolve.

A smoker downplaying the risks instead of quitting.

Change — it is a key engine of attitude change.

Supported by many classic and modern experiments on attitude change.

Dissonance is an internal feeling that's hard to measure and varies by person and culture.

No — people often rationalise (change the belief) rather than change the behaviour.

A broad value that varies between cultures and can be used to compare them.

Individualism vs collectivism.

Personal goals, independence and standing out.

Group harmony, loyalty and duty.

No — they are averages; individuals within a culture vary widely.

By treating an average as a fixed trait of every individual (stereotyping).

They give a shared framework to compare cultures and predict differences.

They risk stereotyping, may use dated data, and ignore within-culture variation.

No — dimensions describe differences in values, not which is superior.

Perspective — culture is a lens that shapes what counts as normal.

Learning and absorbing the norms, values and behaviours of your own culture as you grow up.

Through observation/imitation, direct teaching, and social norms.

Enculturation = your own culture growing up; acculturation = adjusting to a new culture.

A child learning their culture's table manners by watching, being taught, and being praised.

Because enculturation is absorbed early and rewarded consistently.

Absorbed norms feel universal, so other cultures' ways can wrongly seem 'odd'.

Explains cultural differences in behaviour, with developmental and cross-cultural support.

Hard to measure as one process and to separate from biology; people also resist norms.

No — they can question, resist and reshape their culture's norms.

Change — behaviour changes gradually as culture is absorbed.

The psychological and cultural change that happens when people from one culture meet another.

Acculturation = adjusting to a new culture; enculturation = absorbing your own culture growing up.

Keeping your own culture and engaging with the new one — a balanced blend.

Giving up your own culture and fully adopting the new one.

Keeping your own culture and avoiding the new one.

Rejecting or being excluded from both cultures — belonging to neither.

Integration = best; marginalisation = worst.

The stress of adapting to a new culture — language barriers, discrimination, lost support.

No — a hostile host society can push people towards separation or marginalisation.

Change — contact with a new culture reshapes identity and behaviour over time.

Studying behaviour from within a culture, on its own terms and meanings.

Emic = inside, on the culture's terms; etic = outside, to compare cultures.

In-depth methods — interviews, case studies, immersion.

It uses the culture's own concepts rather than imposing outside standards.

Rich, context-sensitive understanding of what a behaviour means to people.

Findings are hard to generalise or compare across cultures.

Emic gives depth/meaning; etic allows comparison — together they balance out.

Living alongside a community to understand what their mourning rituals mean to them.

Perspective — it takes the insider's viewpoint.

No — it is often time-consuming and immersive.

A method that manipulates an IV and measures its effect on a DV, controlling other variables.

The variable the researcher changes on purpose.

The variable the researcher measures.

One that randomly allocates participants to conditions.

One where the IV is a pre-existing feature (e.g. age), so no random allocation is possible.

It spreads individual differences evenly, so DV changes are more likely caused by the IV.

Control and random allocation isolate the IV as the likely cause of DV changes.

Best method for showing cause and effect, with high control and replicability.

Control can make them artificial, and participants may show demand characteristics.

Causality — they test whether the IV causes a change in the DV.

A method that studies behaviour by watching and systematically recording what people do.

Naturalistic = real setting (high ecological validity); controlled = set-up situation (more control).

Covert = people don't know they're watched; overt = they know.

Participant = the researcher joins the group; non-participant = watches from outside.

A clear definition of what behaviours to count, making observation systematic.

People changing their behaviour because they know they are being watched.

Captures real behaviour directly, often with high ecological validity.

It shows what people do, not why, and can suffer observer bias.

Use a clear coding scheme and a second observer (inter-rater reliability).

Measurement — it turns behaviour into recordable, countable data.

An in-depth investigation of a single person, group or event, usually using several methods.

For rare, complex or unrepeatable cases too unusual for other methods.

By combining several methods — interviews, observation, tests — often over time.

Rich, detailed, realistic data on complex cases; high ecological validity.

Findings may not generalise and they can't establish cause and effect.

A striking case can reshape a theory, even though it can't be generalised.

Case study = deep on one case; survey/experiment = shallow on many.

No — that requires a controlled experiment.

Researcher subjectivity, and distortion when relying on memory of the past.

Measurement — many kinds of data build one rich picture.

A method that measures the relationship between two variables without manipulating them.

Both variables rise together (e.g. more study, higher grades).

As one variable rises, the other falls (e.g. more screen time, less sleep).

A third variable could drive both, or the causal arrow could run the other way.

An unmeasured factor that drives both correlated variables (e.g. heat behind ice cream and drowning).

They can study variables that can't be manipulated (e.g. stress, trauma).

They can't show cause and effect; open to third-variable and reverse-causation problems.

A correlation spots a pattern; an experiment can then test whether it's causal.

Ice-cream sales and drowning rise together, both driven by hot weather.

Causality — but cautiously: a correlation is a link, not a cause.

Gathering data by asking people about their own thoughts, feelings or behaviour.

A written set of questions given to many people; efficient and often quantitative.

An interview with fixed questions asked the same way each time — easy to compare.

A free conversation guided by topics — rich data, but hard to compare.

Answering to look good rather than truthfully.

A question that pushes the respondent towards a particular answer.

It reaches thoughts and feelings that cannot be observed.

Answers may be dishonest (social desirability) or inaccurate.

Use anonymous questionnaires and neutral wording; build trust in interviews.

Measurement — it turns private experience into comparable data.

The group actually studied, chosen to represent a larger population.

The whole group the researcher wants their findings to apply to.

Everyone in the population has an equal chance of being chosen — most representative.

Using whoever is available and willing — quick but often unrepresentative.

People choose to take part, e.g. by answering an advert.

Choosing sub-groups in the same proportions as the population.

Participants recruit others — useful for hard-to-reach groups.

A biased sample limits generalisability — findings may only apply to that group.

Random/stratified = more representative; opportunity/self-selected = more practical.

Bias — an unrepresentative sample biases the findings.

Biological (chemistry/genes), cognitive (thinking patterns), sociocultural (social factors/stigma).

Neurotransmitter differences (e.g. serotonin) and genetic vulnerability, via the diathesis-stress model.

Negative thinking patterns and biases that deepen low mood.

Isolation, loss, poverty, discrimination, and cultural stigma.

Biological, psychological and social factors interact to cause a disorder.

It is reductionist — the evidence points to interacting causes, not one.

It explains why medication can help, and there is genetic evidence.

It explains social patterns and the effects of stigma on help-seeking.

Because the causes interact, so treating body, mind and situation together helps more.

No — studies are illustrative; hypothetical or real examples in your own words are fine.

Medication (e.g. antidepressants) that alters neurotransmission.

Therapy such as CBT that challenges and changes negative thinking.

Building social support, reducing isolation and tackling stigma.

Education, screening and reducing risk factors to stop problems before they start.

Can work quickly and is accessible for people in acute distress.

Side effects, may not address root causes, and relapse risk.

Tackles thinking patterns and gives lasting coping skills.

The causes interact, so treating body, mind and situation together often works best.

With evidence — controlled trials and follow-up — not just testimonials.

Change (improving wellbeing) and responsibility (effective, ethical care).

A strong emotional bond between an infant and their main caregiver.

Using the caregiver as a safe base — linked to sensitive, responsive caregiving.

Anxious or avoidant patterns, often from inconsistent or unresponsive care.

An innate drive to bond with a caregiver for survival.

An internal 'working model' of relationships that guides later expectations.

Caregiving norms and what counts as 'good' attachment vary by culture.

Later relationships and experiences can change a person's patterns.

Often correlational, risks over-determinism, and may reflect cultural bias.

An internal cognitive template of relationships built from early attachment.

Change — the early self shapes the later self, but development stays open.

Biological maturation, cognitive development, and sociocultural factors (peers, culture).

The brain and body developing on a rough biological timetable.

Thinking becoming more complex with age and experience.

Through enculturation, social learning from role models, and social norms.

In adolescence, as young people seek independence.

Genes and environment continually interact rather than acting alone.

It underplays how experience (plasticity) shapes the brain.

Social influences are hard to isolate from biology and vary by culture.

An integrative, biopsychosocial view — the influences interact.

Perspective — each approach highlights a different influence.

Biological (bonding/evolution), cognitive (perceptions/attributions), sociocultural (proximity/norms).

We tend to like people we see and interact with often.

We tend to be drawn to people who seem similar to us in attitudes and background.

Perceived similarity, positive attributions, and beliefs about the relationship.

Proximity, familiarity, similarity, and cultural norms (e.g. arranged vs individual choice).

It explains cultural variation, such as arranged versus individual-choice relationships.

Thoughts are hard to measure and may be cause or effect of closeness.

Relationship practices vary by culture; assuming one is universal is ethnocentric.

An integrative view where biological, cognitive and social factors interact.

Perspective — each approach explains part of attraction.

Through conformity, the bystander effect (diffused responsibility), and group identity.

The more people present, the less likely any one person helps.

Each person feels less personally responsible when others are present.

Make a direct, personal request to a specific individual.

Losing self-awareness in a crowd, which can increase antisocial behaviour.

Group pressure can distort an individual's judgement.

Groups can dilute a person's sense of personal responsibility.

Some classic studies were artificial or ethically questionable; effects vary.

No — people resist conformity and help despite the bystander effect.

Conformity and obedience studies, for ethical reasons.

A reconstruction — recall rebuilds events using schemas.

Memory as sensory, short-term and long-term stores linked by attention and rehearsal.

They add expected details and drop inconsistent ones, distorting recall.

A reconstructed memory feels as vivid as a true one.

Reconstructive memory can produce confident but false recall of a crime.

Models make memory testable and there's strong evidence for schema-driven errors.

Models oversimplify, schemas are hard to measure, and lab tasks can be artificial.

Cognitive models make an invisible process testable.

Schemas distort recall, adding expected and dropping inconsistent details.

Useful and often accurate, but reconstructive and predictably distorted under some conditions.

Thinking uses fast, automatic System 1 and slow, effortful System 2.

Fast, automatic, effortless thinking that handles most decisions with shortcuts.

Slow, deliberate, effortful reasoning that can check and override System 1.

A mental shortcut used by System 1 to reach quick judgements.

Over-weighting the first value you encounter when judging.

Seeking and noticing information that fits existing beliefs.

System 1 shortcuts are usually helpful and fast; they only mislead in tricky situations.

Explains many biases and has practical value for improving decisions.

The 'two systems' may be a metaphor, not literal brain parts.

Recognise when to slow down and engage System 2 to check System 1.