AQA “A” Unit 3; Chapter 19: Cultural Criticisms of the Psychometric Method of Defining Intelligence and Culture-Free Intelligence Tests (Part 1)

I was in the mood to write something really unique and original for the blog this week.  The ‘Theories of Attachment’ blog has done amazingly well hitting second place in the top ten and I really wanted to challenge that.  Moreover, I want to step a bit out of my comfort zone of social psychology, but still do enough cross-cultural psychology to keep things interesting and fun.  Quick inspection of the textbook reminded me of all the subjects that scare me to death and with a deep breath I screw my courage to the sticking place; I am tackling the subject of Intelligence Testing.

When discussing psychometric approaches to measuring intelligence, the underlying paradigm is that intelligence:

The key idea behind intelligence testing in this way is that psychologists should be able to measure differences in intelligence between individuals (Searle, 2003).  So, where do we start?

Wechsler (1939) further developed Binet’s ideas (1905) of the intelligence quotient (IQ), the score calculated by comparing mental and chronological age and multiplying by 100 (thus, making average IQ, 100).

What Wechsler found, was that if you took a large group pf people’s IQ scores, they usually fell in what is called a normal distribution.  Normal distribution is the pattern that is discovered when many people’s scores are put on a continuous variable and the frequency is plotted.  Wechsler’s key findings were that:

• 68% of people scored between +1 and -1 standard deviation, scoring between 84 and 116 IQ points.
• 95% of people scored between +2 and -2 standard deviations, scoring between 68 and 132 IQ points.
• 5% of people scored between +3 and -3 standard deviations, scoring < 68 and > 132 IQ points.

The best way to understand these statistical results is to remember they are around the 100, meaning half of the percentage is above the 100 score and the other half below.  So, with the first standard deviation divide the percentage in half and you can deduce what the general population is.

68% ÷ 2 = 34% of people score between 100 and 116 IQ points and 34% of people score between 84 and 100 IQ points.

To do the second and third standard deviations, you have to subtract the first standard deviation from the second.

95% - 68% = 27% ÷ 2 = 13.5%

Therefore, 13.5% of people score between 116 and 132 IQ points and 13.5% of people score between 68 and 84.

Now, challenge yourself!  What percentage of people score greater than 132 IQ points?

Moving on, The Wechsler Scales (also called the WISC-R) are aimed at adults, children and pre-schoolers, with questions adjusted to suit the ages of all three groups.

The WISC-R measures:

However, there are key criticisms to measuring intelligence with the WISC-R.

1. Most of the items rely on verbal comprehension (e.g., understanding the spoken word; Colman 1990).
2. The WISC-R measures knowledge and memory rather than pure thinking abilities (e.g., problem solving and logic; Colman, 1990).
3. The Flynn Effect (1994) observes that average scores on intelligence testing has grown by 15-25 points over the last generation.  Flynn argues then that intelligence cannot have increased over that period, and therefore the tools used to measure intelligence over the past 20 years have been statistically flawed and are not in fact measuring the intelligence it has claimed (Note: The WISC-IV released in 2003/4 was adjusted in order to address the Flynn Effect).
4. The WISC-R does not go far enough to measure what intelligence means for people of different ages (Siegler & Richards, 1982).
5. The WISC-R is culturally biased; it represents learning through formal education that only Western children have access to, therefore it may not accurately measure intelligence as it is understood by children without formal education, such as in Senegal (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).

Let’s focus specifically on the last criticism.  The United Kingdom, the United States of America and many other countries like these place a very high value on formal education for children.  This naturally lends itself to measuring intelligence by using the English language but (i) if you do not speak fluent English, does this make you inherently less intelligent or (ii) could the English language itself be encoded with values assumed to be associated with intelligence but are actually culturally relative values, like goal attainment (Sternberg et al., 1981).

Intelligence in the West generally means that a person has practical problem-solving skills, social competence, and in particular speed; that information can be called upon quickly (Sternberg, 1985).  Consider how important shows like Jeopardy are, where intelligent people compete to be the fastest intelligent person.  All three contestants are right, but viewers  attribute the quickest contestant as the most intelligent by enshrining him as 'the winner'.

But this is the American definition of intelligence.  Let’s consider other countries’ definitions of what it means to be intelligent.

These are characteristics that are specific to particular countries.  More generally, Andreas Demetriou and Timothy Papadopoulous (2004) suggests that notions of intelligence is always in reference to the individual’s social world.  For example, in Eastern cultures the definition intelligence also extends to an understanding of social, historical and spiritual aspects of everyday life.  Problem solving therefore is not something done by an individual, but in reference to other’s thoughts and feelings; that an intelligent person understands that to find a resolution to a problem means consulting the thoughts and advice of those he or she is interdependent with. 

This suggestion is supported by other cross-cultural findings such as:

If you want to learn more about intelligence across cultures (and race and gender) I highly recommend the following The Psychologist article.

The main idea behind the cultural criticism of Intelligence testing is that intelligence is a concept that is defined by the social world and related to the self.  Therefore, as long as there are different cultures, there will always be different ideas about what makes a person smart or not.  In reference to psychometric testing then, it may not be possible for any one test to measure intelligence across cultures.

Or is it?

Tune in next week to learn more about culture-free intelligence tests!

Marriage Equality, Queer Theory and Psychology

Dear readers,

Tomorrow, on 26 March 2013, the United States Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments for the two cases surrounding same-sex marriage.

As many of you know from my personal story, this court case is of the upmost importance to me.  When I came out at 19, I was told by a primary caregiver that because of my sexual orientation, I would never find a partner who would love me without hurting me (perhaps violently), that I would die of AIDS and that in this series of fantastical events, I would die alone, ashamed and impoverished with my family turning its back on me, out of shame from my decision to be honest about my sexual orientation.

It was in direct opposition to these statements that I decided I had to make a difference in the world, showing everyone that being a gay man is not someone to be afraid of, ashamed of or something to hide; rather, this world recognises and rewards honesty and merit.  For these reasons I have chosen not to hide my sexual orientation from anyone.  Moreover, I call attention to my research and knowledge on the topic of Queer Theory in psychology.

As my AQA students already know (but my American readers may not), lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender studies are a core part of this college level, or high school equivalent curriculum.  This is not because of political correctness, regulated inclusion or tolerance.  This is because it is science and psychology as a scientific study has a duty to recognise the psychological differences and similarities for this group of people.

I'm truly lucky that today I have the support of the vast majority of my family in my decision to be an out gay man as well as accept and know my civil partner. 

It is in this sentiment that I appeal to my readers to consider psychological evidence and rational thinking if you are uncertain of your feelings on this issue.  With this suggestion, my blog this week will be my first essay I wrote on Queer Theory which was published in British Psychological Society's Student Member's Group Journal in 2010. 

Thank you for reading today.  I hope that the decision of the Supreme Court ultimately does not just change law, but also changes minds, attitudes and hearts so that no son or daughter will have to experience social exclusion again.

          

Contrast the Biological Differences between
Heterosexual Males and Homosexual Males

Tavis Ryan King

Introduction

Discussion regarding the biological differences between heterosexual males and homosexual males is challenging.  Unlike studying sexual differences between men and women, the contrasting points tend to be difficult to detect.  However, research has discovered biological differences in the fields of biology, genetics, and psychology that could be indicative of differences.  What is more difficult than finding these trends though, is explaining their aetiology.  As a result, much of the discussion to explain biological differences goes back to the developmental causes of homosexual behaviour that are not yet solidly founded due to ethical (e.g. experimenting on a neonate) or technological limitations.  Irrespective of this, the aim of this paper is to first explain how the development of heterosexual men and homosexual men differ based on the effects of hormones during neonatal development, brain development, genetic make-up and birth order.  These four concepts are related and researchers from these approaches often cite one another in their studies.  Lastly, sexually dimorphic patterns typically seen differentiating men and women also appear as a contrast between heterosexual men and homosexual men.  These trends will be discussed as their aetiology is also unknown at this point in time.

          

To start, it is important to define sexual orientations of the two types of men being discussed.  Sexual orientation is a person's disposition as to what gender they are sexually attracted to (Baur & Crooks, 1999).  The typical sexual orientation shared by most people is heterosexuality, which describes the attraction to the opposite sex.  This sexual orientation explains the attraction between men and women.  Homosexuality though refers to attraction among the same sex.  It should be considered that sexual attraction in humans is on a scale, and that dominantly heterosexual men may sometimes become attracted to another male and that dominantly homosexual men may sometimes become attracted to females. Because this paper will be contrasting the biological differences between heterosexual and homosexual men, most-if not all-of the studies cited will have been carried out on predominantly or exclusively heterosexual men and predominantly or exclusively homosexual men.  This is typically measure with The Kinsey Scale developed by Alfred Kinsey (1948).  This scale is ranged from zero to six describing various degrees of attraction between the two sexes.  When cited studies did not use the Kinsey Scale to select participants, self-reporting was typically used.

Hormone Theory

The effects hormones have during the developing male as a foetus also seems to affect sexual behaviour.  In rat testing, if testosterone is inserted into the foetus at a critical stage of development, the rats brain will be sensitive to male hormones for the rest of its life and insensitive to female hormones.  Alternatively, if testosterone is blocked during this period, it will later become sensitive to female hormones (LeVine, 1966, as cited in Cirese & Wade, 1991).  Furthermore, when male rats are castrated at birth and injected with female hormones, they exhibit female sexual behaviour (Young, Goy & Phoenix, 1965; Levine, 1966, as cited in Cirese & Wade, 1991).  The male rats will arch their back and present themselves for mounting to other male rats.  This research does not directly relate to human behaviour, but given the similarity to rat and human foetuses, it is indicative of the possibility.

          

In humans, it is suspected that androgen levels are the affecting hormone toward a homosexual disposition among men.  Androgen is the male sex hormone which initiates male development physically.  In addition to this function, androgen also has effects male brain development.  It is assumed that normal-to-high levels of androgen released into the foetus during pregnancy produces heterosexual males.  Low androgen levels released into the foetus does not develop the brain in the same way as normal levels and so produced homosexual males.  Differences in the make-up of the brain between heterosexual men and homosexual men will be discussed later in the paper.  While the theory of androgen and its effects on behaviour are suspected, it can not be proven as testing this on humans at this fragile stage of life would harm the developing child and so therefore can not be conclusive.

          

Extreme stress levels seems to also have a bearing on male neonates.  If a mother carrying a neonate is under extreme duress, she will produce more stress-hormones such as adrenocorticotropic hormones (ACTH), corticosterone, cortisol, and epinephrine (Stechler & Halton, 1982; Ward, 1984, as cited in Ellis & Ames, 1987).  All of these hormones retards the effects of testosterone on the infant's development.  This effect was tested on pregnant rats in their third trimester.  The pregnant rats were placed in an intensely lit cage while she was uncomfortably contained inside a narrow plastic tube.  After she gave birth, the male offspring exhibited same-sex behaviour (Ward, 1974, 1977, as cited in  Ellis & Ames, 1987).  This study has been replicated several times since then (Dahlof, Hard, and Larzzon, 1977; Whitney and Herrenkohl, 1977; Gotz and Dorner, 1980; Rhees and Fleming, 1981, as cited in Ellis & Ames, 1987).  Anecdotally, this effect seemed to match historical records from the Second World War (Dorner, Geier,  Ahrens, Krell, Munx, Gsieler, Kittner, & Muller, 1980, as cited in Ellis & Ames, 1987).  Germany recorded that there were an unusually high number of homosexual men from 1934 through to 1953 who were born from pregnancies carried through the war.  The researchers explained that this was an unusually distressing time in German history and perhaps the effect of stress-hormones took hold of a generation of men.  Of course it is difficult to prove this relationship because it is too far in the past, however further studies have investigated stress-levels as cause for sexual diversion.  A sample of mothers who knew they had homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual sons were asked if they remembered being particularly stressed during their pregnancy.  Answers ranged from divorce, death of a family member, and traumatic financial woes.  The study found that two thirds of the mothers of homosexual offspring remembers specifically being extremely stressed at the point of pregnancy.  This is in comparison to only one third of the mothers of bisexual children, and less than ten percent of the heterosexual children (Dorner, Schenk, Schmiedel and Ahrens,1983, as cited in Ellis & Ames, 1987).  This observed relationship however is difficult to measure as an effect, and the researchers also observed that there would be wide variation between mothers as to how much stress they could deal with before they were overwhelmed and their offspring affected (Dorner, et al., 1983, as cited in Ellis & Ames, 1987).

          

Lastly in regards to hormones, research has determined that several female contraceptives based on anti-androgen chemical effects.  Medroxypogesterone acetate (a.k.a. Depo-Pravera), flutamide, cimetidine and cyproterone acetate are all capable of blocking testosterone's effects or alternatively block the neuro-organisational function of sex hormones (Anand & van Thiel, 1982; Clemens, Gladue, & Coniglio, 1978; Neumann & Steinbeck, 1973, as cited in Ames & Ellis, 1987).  These drugs change how androgens synthesize and therefore assist in forming androgen receptors in the male foetus.

          

Simon LeVay (1991, as cited in Baur & Crooks, 1999) suspected that homosexual attraction could be biological in nature and did a comparative study on the brains of forty-one cadavers.  He did post-mortem examinations on nineteen known homosexual men who had died from AIDS, sixteen presumed heterosexual men, two of whom died of AIDS complications, and six presumed heterosexual women.  LeVay found that the anterior hypothalamus, which is the area of the brain that influences sexual behaviour, of the homosexual men were half the size of the heterosexual men.  By comparison, the anterior hypothalamus of the homosexual men was similar in size to the female counterpart.  The results suggest that the size of the anterior hypothalamus is a dimorphic characteristic that separates men and women, and that homosexual men biologically share this characteristic with women. However, LeVay himself said that this was a suggestion that he intended to open to further research and accepted that this study could be criticized by the facts that the homosexual men died of various AIDS complications that could have affected this outcome.  This study was replicated with sheep in 2002 at Oregon State University (Gay for Hay?).  The research team dissected ten ewes, nine rams that only mated with other rams, and eight rams that mated only with females.  They found again that the anterior hypothalamus of the homosexual rams were equal in size to the ewes, and that the anterior hypothalamus of the heterosexual rams were double in size.  While across species, this study supports LeVay's findings and possibly negates the effect AIDS had on the findings.

Genetic Theory

Genetics and heritability have long been suspected as contributing to the differences between heterosexual and homosexual men.  Irving Kallman's (1952) studied eighty-five sets of male identical twins where one twin was homosexual.  Out of those eighty-five, Kallman found that forty pairs which he described as having 'perfect concordance' meaning that when one twin was homosexual, so was the other.  He compared this finding with forty-five sets of fraternal twins which he reported as an insignificant level of concordance.  Kallman's study does seem to be flawed.  It should have been expected that among the fraternal-twin study, while perhaps not as strong as the concordance among identical twins, there would be more an an insignificant level because the fraternal twins still shared half of there genes (Cirese & Wade, 1991).  Bailey and Pillard (1991, as cited in Baur & Crooks, 1999) replicated Kallman's study improving the sample by including a test group of adopted brothers.  They found similar results among identical twins as Kallman found, with fifty-two percent concordance.  The previously criticize fraternal-twin result of Kallman's was reshaped when twenty-two percent concurrence was found in the 1991 study, and among the adopted brothers, there was eleven percent concurrence.  Bailey and Pillard noted that in fact their concurrence rates could be higher as all of their twins were raised in the same home, and so environmental factors would have similarly affected the set of brothers.  However, the replication of the strong concurrence among identical twins suggest a genetic component.  It should be noted though that twin studies can be criticized in how samples for gay identical twins are recruited.  The volunteers for these studies are almost exclusively recruited through advertisements in gay-interest magazines and word of mouth throughout gay communities.  Therefore, homosexual twin study samples are likely to be affected by volunteer bias as gay identical and fraternal twins are likely to volunteer.  The concurrence could be overstated based on the eagerness of volunteers.

          

However, support for a genetic link is not limited to concurrent homosexual behaviour in twin studies alone.  Dean H. Hamer (1993, 1999) discovered similar genes that were shared between homosexual men and other homosexual men they were related to maternally.  His study looked at relatives not only among brothers, but inclusive of uncles as well.  Out of 182 families that had two or more gay brothers, he found that 13.4% of maternal uncles were gay in contrast to 6.9% of paternal uncles.  He hypothesized that a gene found the the X-chromosome, Xq28, was shared between the family members.  This would imply that homosexual behaviour is inherited from the mother.

Birth Order Theory

Perhaps the strongest evidence that concerns the sexual orientation of the child is the effect or birth order. Anthony Bogaert (2002) points that national health statistics collected in the United States and The United Kingdom point to the fact that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to be born middle or last (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994, as cited by Bogaert, 2002).  Biologically, Bogaert theorizes that each male pregnancy that comes to term, essentially 'inoculates' the mother's immune system.  When a mother carries a girl, that girl foetus is not attacked by the mother's immune system because her antibodies interpret the foreign object (the baby) as similar in genetic code to the mother.  However, in boys, the immune system sees the male foetus as a foreign object that should be attacked.  The immune system is easy 'defeated' so to speak when the first male child is brought to term.  However, by way of inoculation, when the second male foetus is introduced into the mother, the mother's immune system recognises the 'foreign object' from the first pregnancy and is better prepared to attack it.  The mother's body prevents this by releasing antibodies, known as HY antigens, into the womb which deters the immune system.  For each male foetus she carries, the immune system gets stronger, and she releases more deterring antibodies.  Bogaert theorizes that either these antibodies are having an effect on the androgen levels in the womb on the male foetuses or that the HY antigens are themselves affecting brain masculinisation.  Based on LeVay's theory that decreased androgen levels in utero affect the anterior hypothalamus, this would explain why men with two or more older brothers have an increased chance of being homosexual.  In fact, for each additional older brother a man has, increases his chances of being homosexual by 33% (Blanchard, 1997).

The Differences of Sexually Dimorphic Traits

Lastly, sexually dimorphic traits that normally differentiate between men and women have been observed occurring in homosexual men, setting them apart from their heterosexual counterparts.  Sexual dimorphic traits are the biological traits that that differentiate males from females across species.  An example of a dimorphic trait in animals would be antlers on deer.  Only a male deer can grow antlers and females can not.  Two human examples would be how males have a larger heart than females, and that females have a greater than ninety degree angle in the infrapubic angle of their pelvic bone.  Dimorphic traits that normal contrast men and women do occur to contrast heterosexual men and homosexual men.  As previously mentioned, the size of the anterior hypothalamus could be interpreted as a dimorphic trait.  In addition to this, gay men also share the female pattern of decreased cerebral laterality (Reite, Sheeder, Richardson, & Teale, 1995, as cited in Bailey, Chivers, & Mustanski, 2002).  Also, EEG patterns of gay men resemble EEG patterns recorded from heterosexual women during spatial and verbal testing (Alexander & Sufka, 1993, as cited in Bailey et al., 2002). 

Conclusion

Biological differences between heterosexual men and homosexual men were largely speculated in the past when scientists were trying to determine a cause of homosexuality when it was considered a mental disorder (Kallman, 1952).  Since that time, advances in technology in the fields of microscopy, medicine and genetics, as well as social attitudes surrounding homosexuality as acceptable behaviour and not a disorder have allowed biological characteristics to come to light and be studied by the medical field and social scientists.  Biological differences such as hormone levels affecting the neonate, chromosome detection, and birth order seem to be likely factors in determining differences in homosexual and heterosexual men.  In addition, new research is finding sexually dimorphic traits normally contrasting heterosexual men and women shared between heterosexual and homosexual men, such as the size of the anterior hypothalamus, brain activities, and performance tasks.  Although the origins of this differences are not known and therefore can not imply any conclusions, these findings should inspire new research and studies in the future to detect the reasons these differences exist.

Works Cited

Bailey, J., Dunne, M., Martin, N. (2000, March).  Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (3), 524-536.  Retrieved 4 November 2008.

Baur, K. & Crooks, R. (1999).  Our Sexuality (7th ed.).  Pacific Grove, California, USA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Blanchard, R.  (1997, December).  Birth order and sibling sex ration in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females.  Annual Review of Sex Research, 8, 27.  Retrieved 4 November 2008.

Bogaert, A. (2002, September). Recent Research on Sexual Orientation and Fraternal Birth Order. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 11(2), 101. Retrieved November 5, 2008.

Cirese, S., Wade, C. (1991).  Human Sexuality (2nd ed.).  New York City, New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.

Ellis, L. & Ames, M.  (1987, March).  Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation:  A theory of homosexuality-heterosexuality.  Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 233-258.  Retrieved 4 November 2008.

Gay for hay?. (2002, December 10).  Advocate, Retrieved 4 November 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Hamer, D. (1999, August 6).  Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation.  Science.  Retrieved 5 November 2008, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/285/5429/803a

Kallman, F. (1952).  Twin and Sibship Study of Overt Male Homosexuality.  Presented 10 September 1951 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics in Minneapolis.  Retrieved 5 November 2008, from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1716443

Mustanski, B. (2002, December).  A Critical Review of Recent Biological Research on Human Sexual Orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research, 13, 89. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. 

AQA “A” AS Unit 1; Chapter 5: The Difference Between the Aim, Theory and Hypothesis

Sometimes, it is hard to understand the difference between what your research aim is, what your theory is and what your hypothesis is.  We use these words almost synonymously in everyday language in how we communicate with friends, family and colleagues.

To the psychologist, however, these two terms are very different and suggest two distinct stages in the creation of an experiment.

After you complete your literature review, you will be informed enough to create a research aim.  The research aim is a general statement about the purpose of the investigation.

The aim of this research is to investigate the effects of self-esteem on exams.

In a way, the aim really is to start looking for your target and to focus on it.

Then, once you have the aim, you should form a hypothesis.

The hypothesis is a precise, testable statement about the outcome of the investigation.

Students with high self-esteem score more marks in exams.

There are four types of hypotheses you should know about regarding the AS exam:

These are very different from your theory though and pay close attention:

A hypothesis is a testable statement that may include a prediction.  However it is not a theory.

Theories are complex sets of interrelated statements or multiple hypotheses that when looked at all together can explain behaviour.  In essence, a hypothesis is a brick and a theory is a brick wall.

Miller’s hypothesis was that short term memory can hold 7 ± 2.  

Miller’s hypothesis supports the Theory of Multi-Store Memory.

When writing your A-level essays, be sure to understand the difference between these three experimental constructs as confusing them will definitely lead to lost marks!

AQA “A” A2 Unit 4; Chapter 32: Addiction – The Importance of Definitions

Hello students!  Apologies for the brief hiatus.  I had to wrap up some contract work which took me away from my blog, but not my dear students.  Since we spoke last, grades have been released for the AQA Psychology modules.  Have you done as well as you hoped?

Today, I would like to discuss two definitions of addiction.  Generally, I include definitions in my mindmaps right at the top of the page; especially if there is more than one psychological definition for the same word.

One example of this comes from the Models of Addiction module (Unit 4, Chapter 32).

Let’s have a look at the first definition:

Addiction is a state of periodic or chronic intoxication produced by repeated consumption of a drug, natural or synthetic (World Health Organisation [WHO], 1957)

This definition is a classic in addiction research.  It was written by the WHO in 1957 and is the backbone for the medical/biological understanding of addiction.  But does it actually explain how addiction works today?

Think about it!  Psychological evidence suggests that a person can be addicted to gambling, sex, the internet, overeating and World of Warcraft!  None of these require a drug to be consumed.

For this reason, the definition of addiction had to be revised.  Here is a better definition.

A repetitive habit pattern that increases the risk of disease and/or associated personal and social problems.  Addictive behaviours are often experienced subjectively as ‘loss of control’ – the behaviour contrives to occur despite volitional attempts to abstain or moderate use.  These habit patterns are typically characterized by immediate gratification (short term reward), often coupled with delayed deleterious effects (long term costs).  Attempts to change an addictive behaviour (via treatment or self initiation) are typically marked with high relapse rates. (Marlatt et al., 1988)

This definition is broader and is able to explain a wider range of behaviours associated with addiction.  Moreover, it goes into greater detail regarding the subjective experience of addiction.  Last, it offers a model of ‘typical’ behaviours associated with addiction, particularly giving note to high levels of relapse.

Understanding both definitions of addiction would be helpful for a number of reasons.

1. First, it always is important to define your terms in an essay which satisfies A01 marks.
   
2. Second, understanding there is more than one definition and the need for the definition to evolve satisfies A02 marks.
3. Third, if you make your definition relevant to whatever topic you are writing about, i.e., “This model of addiction fits within the definition as outlined by Marlatt et al. (1988) will satisfy A03 marks.

To memorize long definitions though takes work.  I remember when I had to learn definitions of culture for my master’s degree, I wrote them down on notecards and rehearsed them just like lines for a play.  There are no shortcuts for learning definitions word-for-word.  The potential is there though.  I was very proud that I remembered four definitions on exam day! 

Sigmund Freud's Psychosexual Stages of Development

Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939) was arguably the greatest thinker of the 20^th century. His works have influenced literature, art, philosophy, science, politics, and most importantly how we view others and ourselves. Freud’s work output was considerable - spanning over 320 books on various subjects from the Introductory Lectures of Psychoanalysis (1917) to the his later works on society such as Civilization and its discontents (1920). These works generated enormous controversy; primarily because he revealed the very dangerous, very violent, and very sexual nature that lurks behind our conscious awareness. This short essay will outline one of Freud’s great contributions, his psychosexual developmental theory.

Freud’s interest in the inner workings of sexuality created the bedrock for his attempt to understand why the human personality was so complex, and why there was so much variation in people’s character. What Freud discovered was perhaps the most astonishing discovery in psychology, the Oedipus complex. Freud noted in his autobiography, written in 1924, “I must begin by adding that increasing experience showed more and more plainly that the Oedipus complex was the nucleus of the neurosis. It was at once the climax of infantile sexual life and the point of junction from which all of its later developments proceeded". Indeed what a discovery it was, and also what outrage it caused for it suggested that incestuous drives are observable in all human development. The Oedipus complex however is only found halfway through Freud’s psychosexual theory. In order to grasp the Oedipus complex we must start from the beginning.

The Oral stage, the first psychosexual stage, is a period that lasts approximately from birth to the first year. It is marked by a fixation on the physical pleasure gained via the mouth and lips such that the infant’s environment is explored using this part of the body. As we all have observed if you give an infant a foreign object, such as a toy car, the first thing they usually do is place it within the mouth. However this stage is associated with infantile narcissism, which is to say that because this stage coincides with breast-feeding, the baby literally tries to eat and possess the world. Their appetite is insatiable, their world a utopia, the people around them slaves to their wants.

However as the child develops and the luxuries they once had begin to wane their focus shifts thus entering into the Anal stage. This stage occurs around the first year of life and usually ends around the third. It is usually this time that the parents begin to potty train their child, however this is met with resistance. Almost always the child attempts to retain the faeces because they deem it a creation they don’t want to part with. However eventually through parental guidance the child becomes potty trained. The reason many people say that Obsessional tidiness or excessive checking is indicative of being ‘anal’ is because their behaviour can be traced to the method of potty training. Those people who may fall into this category perhaps came from a punishable authoritarian household where potty training was quite severe or over controlling. Alternatively those who were given very permissive potty training may exhibit highly unorganised characteristics, such as poor hygiene etc.

The third stage of Freud’s psychosexual theory, the Phallic Stage, is perhaps the most important because it is the stage in which the Oedipus complex arises. It is a stage that lasts between the ages of three and six and is marked by the child coming to terms with their biological gender, observing and contemplating their genitalia. The boy realises that he has a penis, however the female realises that they are missing one. Through this curiosity each gender goes through a series of steps that aim to relieve this anxiety.

Many children around this age begin to explore and play with their genitalia, however this is met with tremendous anxiety from the parents who try and prohibit such activity. An important point to make here is the great misconception of critics of psychoanalysis: that the child wants to have sex with the opposite parent. It is not sex but sexuality that is directed toward the opposite sex parent (sex and sexuality are quite different), such that the first sexual drive the child feels is directed to the one who provides the most comfort, the mother. Freud mainly discussed the role in which the young boy went through the phallic stage, and did briefly discuss female Oedipus, however came to very complicated conclusions and left it pending only to be taken up by Carl Jung with the Electra complex.

As the male child identifies with his mother he finds he is unable to possess her, primarily because of one simple thing, the father. As the father prevents the child from becoming enmeshed with the mother and becoming dependent on her, in the mind of the child this is experienced through considerable fear, what Freud called Castration Anxiety. It is because the child believes that it is his penis that has given him leeway to possess the mother that the child concludes that punishment for doing so is to be castrated from the father; remember however that this all happens unconsciously. It is this defining drama that leads the child into the realm of independence, by not being fixated and totally dependent on the mother. Successful resolution of the Oedipal conflict is demonstrated by repression of it (The mind pushes the conflict into the unconscious).

Adult behaviour that can be indicative of an unresolved Oedipal conflict could be an over dependency on others, those who still live with their parents well into adulthood, problems maintaining consistent romantic relationships, or emotional immaturity such as histrionic types. Freud said however that this conflict does eventually arise again (return of the repressed) in the last stage of his psychosexual theory, however before we get to that lets discuss the stage before, the Latency Period.

The Latency Period begins at the end of the Oedipal conflict at around five or six and goes until the onset of puberty. Freud emphasised that this was more of a period between stages rather than a stage in itself. By going through the trauma of the Oedipus stage the child becomes very suggestible to outside influence mainly due to an unconscious fear of castration. Because the child now feels that it can no longer rely on the safety of the mother as it once did, they turn away from original narcissism and toward the world. This period is marked by a diminishment of sexuality and intensification of repression leading to what is called Infantile Amnesia (Forgetting ones early childhood). 

After this period we enter into puberty and the final stage of the psychosexual development the Genital Stage. This stage starting at puberty sees a return of the Oedipal conflict however is different because sexuality is externalised not internalised. Freud emphasised that the original love object choice is defined in early psychosexual development and therefore when the sexual organs begin to develop into adulthood the sexual tension that follows demands release directed toward the outside world. This sexual tension during puberty Freud says creates a feeling of unpleasure and it is the role of the subject experiencing this to discharge the sexual energy toward an appropriate agent. This agent however can be anything, a man, woman, animal, or even inanimate objects that were preconceived during the early stages of psychosexual development. Modern research (See Robert Stoller’s Erotic form of Hatred 1986) suggests that perverse sexual behaviour such as sex with animals, children, or objects has its roots in childhood trauma so a problem during an early psychosexual stage e.g. an unresolved, violent, or disturbed oedipal stage could in theory lead to very dangerous sexual activity later in life.

In conclusion Feud’s psychosexual theory has had an immeasurable effect on psychological thought. Since his death in 1939 the sheer explosion of thought and development on his theory has led to numerous different schools of psychoanalysis to blossom all of which have unique and different takes on his work. Some of these schools include the Kleinians, who have investigated considerably into the workings of the oral stage, the Lacanians who have developed new ways of thinking about the phallic stage, and many more including Bionian, Anna Freudian, Feministic, Jungian, and Object Relational.

The Tutor King would like to thank guest blogger, Max Thistlethwaite for his amazing contribution.  Max is a PhD student in Psychoanalytic Research at Brunel University.  If you have any questions to ask about Freud's Psychosexual Stages of Development, just email us at enquiries@thetutorking.com.

A Biochemical Approach to Aggression

Throughout history, aggression, albeit in different forms, has always been present, and when a behaviour is constant – through context, time and cultures - it tends to suggest there is a biological basis for it. The biological approach has many different sub domains, with some focusing on the role of genetics or the neural structures in the brain, but this post will focus on the role of chemicals in our bodies - hormones and neurotransmitters.

If we were to conduct a survey of the population and ask what was the most important hormone in aggressive behaviour, there’s a good chance the answer would be testosterone.  Testosterone is a member of the androgen hormones, which means it plays a major role in determining our gender, and is the key hormone in the development of males and their physiques. Males across cultures engage in more violent behaviour and crime than females (Ellis, 2009), and an argument could be made that the cause of this is the role of testosterone.  Archer in 1995 looked into the relationship between aggression and testosterone, and through analysing a large number of other studies came to the conclusion that whilst there was a positive correlational relationship between aggression and testosterone, it was quite a weak one (Archer, 1995). 

Despite the conceptions held by the majority of us, testosterone has very little direct impact on aggression in humans. Eisenegger et al. (2009) found that following the administration of testosterone, individuals did not engage in any more aggressive or risky behaviours than those who had been given a placebo. This suggests that even if testosterone does have an effect on aggression, it is very limited, which in turn means our ability to use it as an explanation for aggression is also limited.

Neurotransmitters are another biochemical found in the body that has a relationship with aggression. Those  studying depression will be very familiar with the neurotransmitter serotonin, which also plays a very important role in aggression. In comparison to testosterone, where we could associate high levels of the hormone with high levels of aggression, with serotonin it is the reverse, with low levels of serotonin linked to aggression.  Serotonin helps control our impulses and aggressive behaviour, and with low levels of serotonin, this control wanes. Mann et al. (1990) had 35 subjects complete an ‘aggression questionnaire’, then take a drug that reduced their levels of serotonin, and finally complete the questionnaire once again. It was found that after the drug had been administered, hostility and aggressiveness in males increased. Interestingly this result was only seen in males, so does serotonin affect females in a similar fashion? A possible explanation might be the differing levels of testosterone mentioned previously. But can a questionnaire ever really assess aggression?

The take home message from this is that hormones and neurotransmitters do play a role in aggression, but that role is small and definitely not as large and impacting as many of us might at first assume.

The Tutor King would like to thank guest blogger, Paul Anstiss, for writing on this topic and doing an incredible job breaking down a difficult topic for A-level students.  

Paul is a second-year university student at University of Exeter and doing his BSc in Psychology with Exercise and Sport Science, which is a programme which was discussed in a previous post should you be further interested. If you have any questions you would like to ask Paul, please email enquiries@thetutorking.com.

Theories of Attachment (AQA, Psychology "A" AS, Unit 1: Chapter 3)

I hope many of you are breathing easier since last week.  I know of a few of you still have exams this week so I thought I would discuss a topic that could double as revision material and a new topic.  This also represents a new direction for the blog.  The original concept of The Tutor King blog was to discuss what you can do with a psychology degree in the future.  This will still be talked about but I listened to feedback and I’m excited that many of you would rather discuss theory as a revision resource more often.  I think this is a great idea and I’m happy to comply!

Attachment is an emotional binding between one person or animal and another that brings them together in space and lasts over time (Ainsworth, 1973).  Usually, the attachment is to a person who an infant observes as being better able to deal with the world around him or her (Bowlby, 1982).  Attachment is studied in infants by observing particular interactions with their caregivers. 

Consider this a brief and condensed summary of Chapter 3, with extra theories to compliment the material.  Remember, all theories are acceptable answers in exams!  Even if it is not in the book, if you can answer and defend with it, you will still get marks!  So if you don’t like a theory from the book, look up the theory online or ask university psychologists (your private tutor, perhaps) for something else that is easier to learn.  Therefore, because AQA provides great coverage of the work of Mary Ainsworth and John Bowlby, I’m going to discuss three theories that get less attention in the presented material.

The subject of attachment was first described by Sigmund Freud as part of the psychosexual stages of development.  Freud thought that if the id’s oral needs were met, then the infant would become attached to that person.  In effect, attachment was simply an incidental consequence of the Oral Stage of Development.  In this way, children who did not receive the required care from their mothers became anxious and were not able to relate to other people, opening up a discussion about attachment disorders.

Following on from Freud, Erik Erikson believed that attachment was formed in infancy as a part of his psychosocial stages of development.  His stage of “Trust versus Mistrust” represents attachment in that trust is the feeling that an individual lives among people who care about him or her, while mistrust results in the belief that other people should be regarded with suspicion.  Attachment therefore is successfully formed when the infant passes through the Trust versus Mistrust stage with a trustful outcome. 

The key difference between Freud and Erikson was that Freud thought food was the necessary component for attachment to occur while Erikson never outlined what functions had to occur for attachment to be present, apart from trusting surroundings.

Harry Harlow was influenced by Freud and Erikson and wanted to better understand the required components that attaches infants to caregivers.  Harlow accepted the behavioural Learning Theory (Dollard & Miller, 1950) and developed a series of experiments on infant rhesus monkeys separated from their biological mothers at birth.  He built two surrogate mothers for the baby monkeys to interact with.  The first mother was made of wire and the second mother was made of terrycloth.  The results of his study showed that the monkeys spent more time with Cloth Mother because they enjoyed cuddling it and the monkeys raised by Wire Mother spent little-to-no time with her because it was uncomfortable.

The conclusion of the experiment by Harlow was that the monkeys preferred Cloth Mother because of the contact comfort she provided.  Moreover, Harlow also concluded that Freud was wrong—that it is not food that is required for infants to attach, but the comfort she provided while feeding took place.

This is when Harlow went a bit Mad Scientist.  Experimental Ethics are very important when conducting experiment, and how you treat your participants, even animals, is important because most psychologists accept that cruel behaviour is not an appropriate method for learning because it is psychologically damaging.  That being said, in the 1950s and 1960s, ethics were not as rigorously defined as they are today.  That being said, the amount of information we learn from unethical studies is valuable to look back on.  It is always a serious thing to consider the trade-off between ethical treatment and what an experiment may reveal.

Having established that baby monkeys will attach to Cloth Mother over and above Wire Mother, Harlow wanted to test just how important feeding was for attachment as well as test the results of abuse on the monkeys.  The conditions and results of these studies are as follows (full journal available here). 

While these experiments were terribly abusive to the baby monkeys, what they did reveal was an answer as to why human children attach and protect their abusive parents.  If abusive parents provide contact comfort and abuse, the attachment created by contact comfort is so strong, children endure the abuse in hopes of receiving contact comfort again later.  This also explains why orphanages and institutions fail.  Even though institutions may feed children, if they do not provide contact comfort, no attachment is formed and the children become psychologically disorganised and mentally ill.

Again, I reiterate, these studies are incredibly powerful.  Harlow provides a dark answer about human behaviour by abusing monkeys which later influenced the later research of John Bowlby (1969), Mary Ainsworth (1978) and Konrad Lorenz (1981).  Animal rights activists and even those who sympathize will find the treatment inappropriate and immoral.

Please, use the comments section below to tell me how you feel about Harlow’s Monster Mother Studies.  Was he ethically right in abusing monkeys to learn about the nature of abuse in human families or should he never have done what he did because of the pain it inflicted on infant monkeys and consequentially we would never know why abused children protect their abusive parents?