All evaluation points I can bring in

• Strength 1 of classical conditioning:

  is that Watson + Rayner found that it was possible to train little Albert to associate loud noise with a white rat. This shows Classical conditioning could be used to explain how phobias develop through association of a stimulus and response in humans.
• Strength 2 of classical conditioning:

  is that Pavlov showed that dogs would salivate at the sound of a metronome even if they weren’t hungry. This shows that physical behaviour such as salivation can be learned through associating a stimulus with a response, supporting classical conditioning.
• Weakness 1 of classical conditioning:

  Skinner found that when a rat was placed in a ‘skinner box’ it quickly learned to press a lever for a reward of a food pellet. This shows that giving positive reinforcement would lead to behaviour being learned and not associating a stimulus with a response.
• One strength of realistic conflict theory is that Sherif found creating competition between the rattlers and eagles was enough to cause prejudice such as name calling. This is a strength as it shows prejudice is caused by competition between groups.
• Another strength of realistic conflict theory is that ember and ember found that in some tribal societies threat of natural disasters and food shortages correlated with inter group hostility. This supports realistic conflict theory as it shows people may go to war to compete for scarce resources such as land or food.
• One weakness of Realistic conflict theory is that Levine found that football fans are more likely to help an injured stranger when wearing colours of the team they supported (in group) as opposed to neutral or those of a rival team (out group). This shows competition isn’t always necessary to create prejudice and belonging to a group is enough.
• One strength of Agency theory is that Milgram found participants demonstrated moral strain when following the order to give an electric shock. This shows that people can experience physical reactions (such as stuttering) to orders they think are wrong but still carry them out due to being ordered by authority.
• Another strength is that Hofling found 95% of nurses gave a dose of a drug that exceeded the max allowed when ordered to by a doctor. This shows that people will obey authority and go into the agentic state.
• Sedikedes and Jackson found that 60% of visitors complied when in groups of 1 or 2 but only 14% in groups of 5 or 6. This is a weakness of agency theory as it shows that obedience may be influenced by the number of targets and not just the presence of an authority figure.
• One weakness is that adorno found that those with an authoritarian personality were more likely to obey those with a higher status. This shows agency theory is a limited explanation as it doesn’t account for the impact personality has on obedience.
• This theory can be considered useful as it can explain historical events such as the atrocities in the Holocaust and help us understand how to prevent people from following certain authority in the future.
• Stages of social identity theory

  1. Categorization

  2. Identification

  3. Comparison
• Categorization

  Observing the world and recognizing that people are divided into different groups based on religion, nationality, physical abilities, etc.
• Identifying with a group can influence how we mold ourselves to fit in (e.g. fashion, hairstyles, car choice)
• Comparison

  Comparing ourselves and our group to outsiders, leading to an 'us vs. them' mentality
• Strength 2 of multi store memory

  Bahrick (1975) found that identification of names and faces from a high school yearbook remained accurate after 15 years supporting the view that LTM can store information indefinitely
• Strength 1 of multi store memory

  HM found that he was unable to make new memories after the hippocampus was removed but he still had a lot of memories up until he was 16, suggesting he still had LTM which highlights how stm and ltm are separate.
• Weakness 1 of working memory model

  Lieberman suggests that blind people have spatial memory even though they may never had any visual information suggesting the VSSP is too simplistic and should be separate stores.
• Supporting evidence of Personality

  Eyseneck et al found violent criminal scored higher on E and P scales compared to non criminals showing crime is linked to biological factors such as personality.
• Critical Evidence of Personality

  Raine et al found lower levels of glucose metabolism in the pre frontal cortex of murderers pleading NGRI compared to the non violent control group, suggesting that criminal behaviour is due to brain malfunction and not personality.
• Supporting evidence for labelling

  Lieberman found that juveniles who have been previously arrested go on to commit more crimes compared to those who have not been previously arrested showing that how you are labelled and treated by society changes behaviour.
• Supporting evidence 2 for labelling theory

  In Amsterdam where use of marijuana isn’t labelled as deviant there is a limited drug use compared to other countries. This supports labelling theory as shows how the label of deviant can change the levels of criminal behaviour.
• Critical Evidence 1 of labelling theory

  Raine found lower levels of glucose metabolism in the prefrontal cortex in murderers pleading NGRI compared to non violent individuals. This shows that criminal behaviour is due to malfunctioning of the brain and not labels
• Critical evidence 2 of labelling theory

  Lemert found cheque forgers had been active in committing crime before the label was applied. This shows that reoffending isn’t always caused by labels given by society.
• What method was used to collect data in Goldstein's study?

  Self-report
• Supporting evidence 1 for amygdala

  Pardini found smaller amygdala 3x more likely to be aggressive than those with larger amygdala showing amygdala is important in causing criminal behaviour.
• Supporting evidence 2 for amygdala

  Yang et al used MRI scans to find a significant correlation between reduced volume in the amygdala and psychopathic scores on emotion and interpersonal skills. This supports the idea that the size of your amygdala may determine how likely you are to commit crime.
• Critical evidence 1 for amygdala

  Eysenck found that criminals scored highly on E N and P scales than non criminals. This suggests personality has a role in criminality rather than the amygdala.
• Critical evidence 2 for amygdala

  Polman found that playing violent video games had a bigger impact on aggression than simply watching TV violence. This shows that it is not the amygdala but getting the opportunity to observe and imitate violence that leads to an increase in aggressive behaviour.
• Supporting evidence 1 of CI

  Paulo found that students who experienced the ECI recalled more accurate information than those who had an instructed interview after both groups watched a mock robbery video. This shows that the enhanced cognitive interview is a good way to gain more information from a witness without losing any accuracy.
• Supporting evidence 2 of CI

  Holiday et al showed younger and older adults a film of a staged crime and found those who had the cognitive interview gave a more accurate recall compared to those who experienced a controlled interview. This shows cognitive interview improves information gained from witnesses.
• Critical evidence 2 of CI

  Ainsworth suggests cognitive interviews take longer to administer than a traditional interview so may not be seen as worth the extra time. Suggests under lab conditions cognitive interviews seem to be more effective but may not be effective in real life solutions.
• Supporting evidence 1

  Bartlett found that participants changed parts of a Native American folk tale by rationalising details such as dying at sunset than sunrise. This supports reconstructive memory as it shows people rationalise and change their memory to make it make more sense to them and fit in their schemas
• Supporting evidence 2

  Loftus and pickall found 25% of participants remembered a false memory of being lost in a shopping mall. This supported reconstructive memory as it shows that memories can be confabulated and altered by suggestion.
• critical evidence 1

  Wynn and Logie found that university students recall of their first week at uni didn’t change much over different time periods. This shows that for natural situations memories are not added over time suggesting rationalisation may only happen in artificial situations.
• Critical evidence 2

  axel rod argues that schema theory can only be used to explain changes in individuals and doesn’t account for changes in groups. This suggests that reconstructive memory doesn’t account for how memory is confabulated or rationalised in all situations
• Dual processing

  This is the idea that the phonological store has limited capacity so it can't cope with two tasks at once which results in a poor processing performance. However if you're presented with both visual information and sound information at the same time you can process effectively as they are 2 separate stores
• Second strength of Working memory model

  Logie et al found dementia patients had impaired functioning of the central executive as they struggled with three tasks which used different components of working memory. This suggests that there is a separate component for the central executive in working memory.
• Weakness 2 of working memory model

  Smith and Jonides found differences in brain activiation with PET scans during visual and spatial tasks. This supports the idea of the visuospatial sketchpad NOT being one store.
• First strength of Working Memory Model

  Case study of KF shows that KF's impairment affected his processing of verbal information but KF’s ability to process visual information was largely unaffected. This shows there are separate components for visual and verbal information supporting working memory