In comparison with more traditional off-line meeting, the on-line couples expressed greater marital satisfaction and were slightly less likely to separate or divorce. Their only conclusion is that on-line dating may be changing the institution of marriage.

Such research does suggest that previous research about the formation, maintenance and breakdown of relationships may need updating to include couples who meet on-line and the different factors involved in relationship processes in that medium.

So should psychology students be rushing to defend Dan Brown’s research skills, or is this a passage we’d all do best to forget?

In the AQA A Psychology specification there are several references to ‘neural mechanisms’. In the mark schemes these are explicitly linked to brain mechanisms (e.g. see question 5, June 2011 PSYA3). However the term ‘neural’ is defined as ‘of, relating to, or affecting a nerve or the nervous system’ (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neural). Should you broaden your use of this term and not limit it just to the brain? The specification does not make this clear.

I received the following answer:

We agree with the definition of ‘neural’ and relevant material on e.g. the peripheral nervous system, would always be credited. For most topics relevant material on neural mechanisms would normally involve the brain ,which is why the brain is emphasized in mark schemes, but in future we will make it clear that ‘neural’ incorporates the whole nervous system and not just the brain.

You can read fuller details of the study here (which contains some evaluative points) and here.

This experiment tested the assumption that music plays a role in sexual selection. Three hundred young women were solicited in the street for their phone number by a young male confederate who held either a guitar case or a sports bag in his hands or had no bag at all. Results showed that holding a guitar case was associated with greater compliance to the request, thus suggesting that musical practice is associated with sexual selection. (Guéguen et al., see here).

Interesting conclusion – but is it justified?

January 2013 report: Determinism

All explanations/theories in psychology are determinist, as they are trying to explain the reason people do things. So referring to any particular theory as ‘determinist’ is trivial. It is only in specific areas that it becomes an important issue e.g. evolutionary and genetic theories of aggression suggest that individuals do not have free will and choice over their aggressive behaviour. This has implications for individual responsibility, morality and the justice system. If elaborated in this way, then references to determinism/free will can earn credit. However, it is depressing to read that genetic explanations of narcolepsy are determinist, and ‘deny the free will to choose not to be narcoleptic…..’ It would usually be better to steer students away from this particular issue.

June 2010 report: Reductionism

The term ‘reductionism’ was regularly misused to refer to approaches that focused on a single model or explanation, e.g. cognitive, psychoanalytic, evolutionary or behavioural. Such approaches may be criticised as narrow or limited, but they are not necessarily reductionist. The term ‘reductionism’ came from biology, and refers to explanations at the lowest and most detailed level; e.g. studying the functions of the liver by studying individual liver cells, or the functions of the brain by examining individual neurons. In psychology, the term is most appropriately applied to biological explanations (e.g. genetics, neurotransmitters, hormones) of complex human behaviours such as schizophrenia, eating disorders and aggression. Such reductionist explanations can be legitimately criticised as ignoring psychological, social and cultural factors. However, the social learning theory of aggression or anorexia nervosa is not reductionist because it ignores genetic factors; it is narrow or limited.

June 2011 report:

‘Gender bias’ is an issue often used in the wrong place. Studies on testosterone and aggression are not biased. It is simply a matter of fact that males have more testosterone than women and research indicates that it has an important role in male aggression. Better candidates were able to point out that women can be aggressive too but explanations might be different to those for male aggression.

‘Cultural bias’ is also commonly misused. Most studies are done in one place and are therefore limited. It is only when findings are generalised to other cultures that bias might come in; this can be important in areas such as relationships, but not so much in biological explanations of behaviour or in models of face perception.

Some people claim to be able to see a halo or aura around other people – a kind of glow, which is often colourful. Recent research has offered a possible explanation for this based on synthesthesia, a condition where people experience crossing between their senses. In other words the stimulation of one of their senses causes a perception in one or more different senses. The consequence is that, for example, different words have specific colours or ‘taste’ different.

The well-known neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran tested a 23-year-old young man (TK) who has both synesthesia and Asperger disorder (see here). TK also claimed to see a coloured light around people that varied with their emotions. When TK observed one of the volunteers he reported seeing a blue aura. When they stood the volunteer in front of a white screen TK was slower to identify blue letters projected onto the apparent blue aura but had no difficulty with orange letters. People without synestheia had no difficulty reporting letters of any colour. This suggests that the perception of an aura may be explained as a form of synesthesia.