Generated by AskSia.ai — graphs, formulas, traps
| Design | What it does | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Experiment | manipulate IV, measure DV | establishes causation |
| Correlation | measures association | can't infer cause |
| Case study | deep on one case | not generalizable |
| Survey | self-report at scale | response bias |
| Naturalistic obs. | watch in natural setting | no control |
r ranges from −1 to +1. r ≈ 0: no linear relation. Correlation ≠ causation.Random assignment (not random sampling) = each subject equally likely to land in any condition. Distributes confounds evenly. This is what makes an experiment causal.
Reliability = consistency (test-retest, inter-rater). Validity = measures what it claims (construct, face, predictive).
Random sample = how participants are selected (generalizability). Random assignment = how they're put in conditions (causality). You can have one without the other. Mixing them up loses points reliably.
| Concept | Definition | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Schema | mental framework / template | organizes new info |
| Algorithm | step-by-step guaranteed solution | slow but accurate |
| Heuristic | mental shortcut | fast but biased |
| Insight | sudden 'aha' realization | creative problems |
Anchoring: initial value biases later estimates Confirmation bias: seek info that supports prior beliefFraming effect: identical info presented as gain vs loss leads to different decisions. '90% survival' feels different from '10% mortality' — same data.
Language milestones: babbling (4-6 mo), one-word (12 mo), telegraphic two-word (18-24 mo), grammatical sentences (3 yrs). Critical period hypothesis: language acquisition harder after puberty.
Linda problem: 'Linda is 31, single, outspoken on social issues. Is she more likely a (a) bank teller or (b) feminist bank teller?' Most pick (b) but it's impossible — (b) is a subset of (a). Representativeness blinds us to probability rules.
| Part | Function |
|---|---|
| Dendrites | receive incoming signals |
| Soma (cell body) | integrate signals; nucleus lives here |
| Axon | conducts action potential away from soma |
| Myelin sheath | insulates axon → faster conduction (saltatory) |
| Axon terminals | release neurotransmitter at synapse |
All-or-none: action potential fires fully or not at all once threshold is crossed (~−55 mV)| Neurotransmitter | Function | Disorder if dysregulated |
|---|---|---|
| Dopamine | reward, movement | Parkinson's (low), schizophrenia (high) |
| Serotonin | mood, sleep | depression (low → SSRIs) |
| GABA | main inhibitory | anxiety (low) |
| Glutamate | main excitatory | migraines, seizures (excess) |
| ACh | movement, memory | Alzheimer's (low) |
A stronger stimulus does not produce a bigger AP — it produces more APs per second. The amplitude is fixed; only firing rate scales with intensity. Saying 'bigger stimulus = bigger AP' loses the question.
| Stage | Capacity | Duration | Loss mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sensory | large | < 1 sec | decay |
| Short-term | 7 ± 2 chunks | ~20 sec | displacement / decay |
| Long-term | essentially unlimited | lifetime | retrieval failure |
Encoding → Storage → Retrieval. Failure at any stage = 'forgetting'Encoding levels (Craik & Lockhart): shallow (visual) < phonological < semantic (meaning). Deep processing → better recall.
| Phenomenon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Serial position | recall first (primacy) and last (recency) better than middle |
| State-dependent | recall improves when state at retrieval matches state at encoding |
| Spacing effect | spaced study beats massed (cramming) |
| Testing effect | retrieval practice strengthens memory more than re-reading |
Older texts: STM = passive storage (Atkinson-Shiffrin). Modern: working memory includes active manipulation (Baddeley) — phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, central executive. Know both terms — many exams test the modern model.
| Study | Researcher | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Line-judging | Asch (1956) | ~37% conform to obviously wrong group answer |
| Obedience to authority | Milgram (1963) | ~65% deliver max 'shock' if told by experimenter |
| Stanford Prison | Zimbardo (1971) | roles rapidly shape behavior (now critiqued ethically) |
| Bystander effect | Darley & Latané | more bystanders → less likely anyone helps (diffusion of responsibility) |
Foot-in-the-door: small ask first → larger ask later (compliance ↑)Door-in-the-face: huge ask first → moderate ask second (compliance ↑)In-group bias: favor own group, distrust out-group. Drives stereotypes, prejudice. Contact hypothesis: equal-status cooperation reduces prejudice.
The bystander effect isn't because people are heartless — it's diffusion of responsibility. If you see a single bystander, you'll often help. The presence of others triggers 'someone else will.' Naming the mechanism precisely wins points.
| Feature | Classical (Pavlov) | Operant (Skinner) |
|---|---|---|
| What's learned | stimulus → stimulus association | behavior → consequence |
| Subject role | passive (involuntary response) | active (voluntary action) |
| Key terms | US, UR, CS, CR | reinforcer, punisher |
| Classic example | Pavlov's dogs salivate to bell | Skinner's rats press lever for food |
| Add (+) | Remove (−) | |
|---|---|---|
| Reinforce (↑ behavior) | Positive R: give treat | Negative R: remove chore |
| Punish (↓ behavior) | Positive P: spank | Negative P: take away toy |
Schedules of reinforcement: Variable ratio (slot machines) most resistant to extinction. Fixed interval gives 'scalloped' pattern (responding peaks just before reward).
Negative reinforcement increases behavior by removing something aversive. Punishment decreases behavior. Putting on a seatbelt to stop the beeping is negative reinforcement — the beeping going off rewards you. Mark this clearly; it's the most-missed PSYC question.
| Stage | Age | Hallmark |
|---|---|---|
| Sensorimotor | 0-2 | object permanence (~9 mo) |
| Preoperational | 2-7 | egocentrism, symbolic thought, no conservation |
| Concrete operational | 7-11 | conservation, reversible operations |
| Formal operational | 11+ | abstract / hypothetical reasoning |
Assimilation: fit new info into existing schema Accommodation: adjust schema for new infoCritical / sensitive periods: windows when specific input is needed for normal development. Language (~ 7), binocular vision (~ months), attachment (~ first year). Missing them produces lasting deficits.
Vygotsky vs Piaget: Vygotsky emphasizes social learning + Zone of Proximal Development (what a child can do with help). Piaget emphasizes individual stage progression. Both influence modern dev psych.
Conservation (volume, number, mass don't change with shape) emerges in concrete operational stage (7-11), not earlier. A 5-year-old will say a tall thin glass has more water than a short wide one — pre-conservation. Don't say preoperational kids understand conservation.
| Keyword | Use § from | Move |
|---|---|---|
| 'IV', 'DV', 'control group' | § ① | experiment — random assignment, manipulation |
| 'correlation', 'r value' | § ① | can't infer cause; check confounds + reverse causation |
| 'random sample / assignment' | § ① | different things — sample for generalizability, assignment for causality |
| 'reliability / validity' | § ① | consistency vs accuracy |
| 'neuron firing', 'action potential' | § ② | all-or-none, Na⁺ in / K⁺ out, ~−70 → +30 mV |
| 'dopamine, serotonin, GABA' | § ② | NT-disorder mapping table |
| 'SSRI / antidepressant' | § ② | blocks serotonin reuptake → more synaptic 5-HT |
| Pavlov, salivation, bell | § ③ | classical: US/UR/CS/CR, acquisition, extinction |
| Skinner, lever, reward | § ③ | operant: + / − reinforcement / punishment |
| 'schedule of reinforcement' | § ③ | VR strongest, FI scalloped |
| Piaget stages, conservation, egocentrism | § ④ | map age → stage → milestone |
| Erikson, identity crisis | § ④ | 8 psychosocial stages |
| 'Strange Situation', secure attachment | § ④ | Ainsworth, predicts later relationships |
| 'STM, working memory, 7±2' | § ⑤ | three-stage model + chunking |
| 'episodic vs semantic' | § ⑤ | declarative subtypes |
| 'serial position effect' | § ⑤ | primacy + recency, middle suffers |
| 'availability heuristic' | § ⑥ | frequency from ease of recall (vivid → overestimated) |
| 'Linda problem', representativeness | § ⑥ | stereotype-matching ignores base rates |
| Asch, Milgram, Stanford prison | § ⑦ | conformity / obedience / role power |
| 'fundamental attribution error' | § ⑦ | over-disposition, under-situation for others |
| 'cognitive dissonance' | § ⑦ | behavior shifts attitude to match |
PSYC 101 wants the names: Pavlov, Skinner, Piaget, Vygotsky, Erikson, Ainsworth, Milgram, Asch, Festinger. Many MC questions test whether you can pair a finding with the researcher. Vague answers like 'a famous study showed…' lose points.
Whenever a question presents a 'study showed X is associated with Y,' check whether it's correlational. If yes, at least three causal explanations exist (X→Y, Y→X, third variable). PSYC graders love rewarding students who name the alternative interpretations.