Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
D:\81897515.doc APPROACHES IN PSYCHOLOGY – INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE STUDIES The Individual Differences Perspective tries to examine exceptional people and the things that make us unique – things like personality, intelligence, mental health and abnormality as well as differences due to race, culture or gender. This approach assumes that DISPOSITIONS are important factors in how people behave and it tries to correct the tendency of the other perspectives to look only at “average” or “typical” people. Here are some examples. Thigpen & Cleckley wrote a groundbreaking case study in 1954. The background was the debate about whether Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) really existed. The aim was to treat a young housewife (“Eve White”) suffering from MPD. Eve White had two “alters” (other personalities) referred to as Eve Black and Jane, who had different memories and behaviour patterns; for example whereas Eve White was timid and anxious, Eve Black was thrill-seeking and sexually confident. Psychometric tests and projective tests backed up the idea that these were genuinely different personalities. Thigpen & Cleckley concluded that MPD sufferers have more than one personality but that through therapy these “alters” can be merged to create one healthy and stable personality. The individual difference is a DIAGNOSIS OF SCHIZOPHRENIA. The situation is completely realistic, so there were real risks in the experiment and medical staff were deceived. The conclusion is that labels are “sticky” – once someone has been labelled (eg as “schizophrenic”) then everything they do and say is interpreted in the light of that label. The individual difference is the PERSONALITY and the abnormal condition of MPD. The testing was a mixture of psychometric tests (eg IQ) and projective tests (eg inkblot). The participant (Christine Sizemore) later condemned the researchers methods and conclusions, claiming she had been treated like a guinea pig and had NOT been cured. David Rosenhan conducted this important study on medical misdiagnosis in 1973. It was a field experiment based on the observations of “pseudopatients” in mental hospitals compared with a university health centre. The background was previous research suggesting doctors found it very difficult to agree on diagnoses of mental illnesses. The 8 pseudopatients (Rosenhan was one!) got admitted to hospitals claiming they heard voices; they then returned to normal behaviour and tried to be released. On average this took 19 days and the patients’ (normal) behaviour was interpreted as abnormal by the staff. Rosenhan concluded that we cannot tell the sane from the insane in mental hospitals and suggested this is because of the “stickiness of labels”. Marc Griffiths carried out this unusual study in 1994. It was a natural experiment carried out under field conditions, using a group of 30 regular gamblers (RGs) and a control group of nonregular gamblers (NRGs). The background was the previous research by Griffiths and others into the nature of addiction. The aim was to see if RGs had more skill at fruit machines than NRGs and if they thought about gambling in a different way. The gamblers verbalised their thoughts and were interviewed later: the RGs had more irrational cognitions about gambling; they spent their £3 stake faster and lost more often when asked to verbalise. Griffiths concluded that the regular gamblers adopt different cognitive strategies from NRGs – they hold irrational beliefs about the game and exaggerate the importance of skill rather than luck. The individual difference is ADDICTION TO GAMBLING. The situation is quite realistic, right down to participants choosing their fruit machine. Getting gamblers to verbalise their thoughts may not be realistic and the interviews might suffer from demand characteristics. The conclusion is that gamblers have distinct cognitive strategies and cognitive therapy might help people with gambling problems. D:\81897515.doc APPROACHES IN PSYCHOLOGY – INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 1. Explain what individual differences are studied by Thigpen & Cleckley. 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of using psychometric tests to measure personality? 3. In what way was the study reductionist? 4. What ethical problems are there with Thigpen & Cleckley’s case study? 5. Explain what individual differences were studied by Rosenhan. 6. How could a different method be used to study medical misdiagnosis? 7. What did Rosenhan mean by “the stickiness of labels”?? 8. How is Rosenhan’s study similar to the research by Thigpen & Cleckley? 9. Explain the individual differences studied by Griffiths. 10. What sampling problems were there with this study? 11. According to Griffiths, how do the thought processes of gamblers differ from ordinary people? 12. What type of data (quantitative or qualitative) did Griffiths produce and what are the advantages of this? 13. In what way is the Individual Differences Approach a particularly useful application of psychology? 14. Why is the Individual Differences Approach hard to generalise from? D:\81897515.doc APPROACHES IN PSYCHOLOGY – INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 1. Explain what individual differences are studied by Thigpen & Cleckley. The ABNORMAL condition called MULTIPLE PERSONALITY DISORDER (MPD) 2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of using psychometric tests to measure personality? STRENGTHS = gives quantitative data which allows for easy comparisons; quick and easy to test large groups at once; requires no special training to administer WEAKNESSES = does not give qualitative data which provides insight; number scores can be reductionist since two people can answer differently but get the same total score; can be invalid if people give socially desirable answers 3. In what way was the study reductionist? The medical model of mental health means that Eve White’s condition was treated as a MEDICAL PROBLEM in need of therapy 4. What ethical problems are there with Thigpen & Cleckley’s case study? Eve White was treated as a guinea pig by the researchers who used her to launch their careers with a best-selling book and a movie tie-in; Eve White didn’t get better but actually developed MORE personalities; Christine Sizemore (Eve) later wrote that she was exploited by the researchers 5. Explain what individual differences were studied by Rosenhan. Diagnosis of schizophrenia 6. How could a different method be used to study medical misdiagnosis? Lab experiment to see if doctors can tell genuinely ill patients from pseudopatients 7. What did Rosenhan mean by “the stickiness of labels”?? A label is hard to escape because it affects how other people interpret everything you do and say 8. How is Rosenhan’s study similar to the research by Thigpen & Cleckley? Both focus on mental abnormality ESPECIALLY how to diagnosis it 9. Explain the individual differences studied by Griffiths. Thought processes of gambling addicts 10. What sampling problems were there with this study? Self-selecting sample would not contain hard-core gamblers (non representative) 11. According to Griffiths, how do the thought processes of gamblers differ from ordinary people? More irrational; exaggerate skill over luck 12. What type of data (quantitative or qualitative) did Griffiths produce and what are the advantages of this? Qualitative: get gamblers’ thoughts in their own words D:\81897515.doc 13. In what way is the Individual Differences Approach a particularly useful application of psychology? It focuses on dispositions (intelligence etc) that are ignored by mainstream psychology; also how to help people with these dispositions 14. Why is the Individual Differences Approach hard to generalise from? Samples tend to be unique and hard to compare