Individual differences + Psychodynamic perspective

• Explain the individual differences area.


  This area is interested in how people differ from one another for example in terms of intelligence and personality. This area focuses more on mental disorders and looks at how things like personality affect people's behaviour.
• Strengths of individual differences

  Many practical applications- e.g understanding around disorders.

  AND

  In depth data.
• Weaknesses of individual differences area.


  Is a little subjective.

  AND

  Ethical issues with studying vulnerable people.
• What is the psychodynamic PERSPECTIVE.


  The perspective look at our unconscious mind- proposed by Freud.Ego- rational part of the personalityID- the primitive and instinctive component of personality.Super Ego- Reasonable, constraining part- contrasts the ID.
• Strengths of psychodynamic perspective.


  Explains many behaviours.

  AND

  Occupies a middle ground on key debates.
• Weaknesses of psychodynamic perspective.


  Theoretical ideas are hard to test.

  AND

  Poor research methodology.
• Freud background.

  Looked at how children go through a series of psychosexual stages.

  oral, anal, phallic, latency and genital- problems going through these stages could lead to emotional problems later on Also looks at oedipus complex and psychoanalysis.
• Freud research method.

  Longitudinal case study.
• Freud sample.

  1 Austrian boy
• Freud case/procedure.

  1. Little Hans showed interest in his 'widdler' at a young age.

  2. Little sister born who he hated.

  3. Developed a severe fear a white horse would bite him.

  4. Had dreams about two giraffes, one crumpled, a plumber cutting his penis off and replacing it with a larger one.

  5. Went away with Freud's help.
• Freud key findings.

  Freud believed Han's phobia was an unconscious fear of father and his 'fantasies' were a consequence of how he went through the phallic stage and his attempt to resolve his oedipus complex.
• Freud conclusions.

  These findings suggest that we can get stuck in stages .
• Baron-Cohen theory.

  It is thought all autistic people lack a theory of mind.
• Baron-Cohen design.

  quasi experiment with a matched partcipants design.

  iv- what the adult had (e.g tourettes)

  dv- score out of 25 on eye task
• Baron-Cohen sample.

  Group 1- 12 people w aspergers

  Group 2- 50 normal people

  Group 3 10 adults with tourettes
• Baron-Cohen procedure.

  Participants tested individually in a quite room in their homes.

  They were given the eye task -they saw eyes for 3 seconds and had to pick correct choice (had a target- most likely choice for a normal adult and foil term- opposite) AND Happe's strange stories task + two control tasks.
• Baron-Cohen results/key findings

  Normal- 20.3, tourettes 20.4 and aspergers- 16.3.

  aspergers did worse
• Baron-Cohen conclusion

  people with autism do have an impaired theory of mind.
• Gould theory/background.

  Looks at intelligence and IQ tests- specifically the American Stanford-Binet test. These tests were used with recruitment. Colonel Yerkes wanted to raise scientific status of of psychology and devised a reliable, objective and valid IQ test. Yerkes firmly believed intelligence was inherited and couldn't be changed, he convinced army to administer his test on large scale. Gould wanted to look at problems with such tests.
• Gould research method.

  A review article.
• Gould sample.

  1.75 million army recruits- including different races.
• Gould procedure.

  First test was the Army alpha test- this was designed for recruits and had 8 parts- It required participants to have good English.

  (very bias to white Americans)

  The second was the Army Beta test for those who couldn't read it (had pictures) - STILL BIAS as instructions for pictures written in English

  Final one was Individual Spoken Examination .

  Everyone who took it got a letter grade.
• Gould results/findings.

  White Americans had men had mental age of 13 and black men had a mental age of 10.41.

  Those with better results were promoted and Immigration restriction act was passed.
• Gould possible conclusions.

  Gould's review could suggest that there was a cultural bias in the way IQ tests were constructed and administered + IQ tests don't measure innate intelligence.
• Hancock theory/background

  Looked at how psychopaths talked- indiosyncratic linguistic styles. Interested specifically with the use of subordinating conjuctions.
• Hancock method.

  Used Semi-structured interview method to interview murderers.
• Hancock sample.

  52 male murderers (androcentric) some psychopaths some non-psychopaths.
• Hancock procedure.

  Used PCL-R to measure levels of psychopathy.

  participants were told to describe their offence in a narrative in as much detail as possible.

  The interview lasted 25 minutes.

  Narratives then processed by Wmatrix.
• Hancocks findings.

  Psychopaths used more subordinating conjunctions than non-psychopaths. Psychopaths also used twice as many words relating to material needs (food, money etc...) - Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
• Hancock's conclusions.

  These finding suggest that psychopaths are more likely to use cause and effect language when describing their crime AND suggests psychopaths focus more on lower lower level needs on Maslow's hierarchy than non-psychopaths.
• Methodological isssues- research method.

  Freud- subjective data

  Baron-Cohen- control over extraneous variables but lacked realism or ecological validity.

  Gould- his own view could affect what areas he chose to include.

  Hancock- had good ecological validity may have been interviewer bias.
• Methodological issues- sampling

  Freud- lacked population validity and androcentric.

  Baron-Cohen- self-selected sampling not very representative.

  Gould- very large population size but androcentric.

  Hancock- All male and all from Canada and small sample size.
• methodological issues- typeof data.

  Freud- qualitative

  Baren-Cohen-quantitative

  Gould- quantitative

  Hancock-quantitative
• methodological issue- validity

  Freud- very subjective making it less valid also population validity

  Baren-Cohen- we don't just judge emotion with just eyes, photos also black and white.

  Gould- the tests weren't an accurate measure of IQ.

  Hancock- Could be argued not all participants were psychotic and

  also social desirability bias.
• Methodological issues- reliability.

  Freud-This study involves an individual so its impossible to replicate.

  Baren-Cohen- participants weren't in same environment as each other.

  Gould- Lack of consistency in the way IQ tests were administered

  Hancock- Issue with semi-structured interview (questions asked to prompt so responses may have varied).
• Methodological issues- ethnocentrism.

  All studies guilty of ethnocentrism.
• Debates- psychology as a science.

  Freud- NOT scientific, subjective qualitative data.

  Baren-Cohen- Scientific as has objective quantitative data.

  Gould- Yerkes was attempting to increase scientific status of psychology by making a standardised + replicable way of measuring intelligence.

  Hancock- Scientific as it had a falsifiable hypothesis and objective data.
• Debates- usefulness.

  Freud- Helped us understand psychoanalysis.

  Baren-Cohen- Helped us understand theory of mind.

  Gould- Has been helpful with reducing prejudice.

  Hancock- Can help detect a psychopath.
• Debate free will/determinism.

  All determinist.
• Debates reductionism vs holism.

  All reductionist but Freud.