(a) Citing research evidence, explain the components of working memory. (10 marks) (b) What are the main differences between…

(a) Working memory

Working memory is an active system for temporarily storing and manipulating information. Baddeley and Hitch (1974) proposed the central executive, phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad; Baddeley (2000) added the episodic buffer. The central executive is an attentional controller that allocates resources, suppresses irrelevant information and coordinates subsystems. The phonological loop stores verbal and auditory material through a phonological store and articulatory rehearsal; the visuospatial sketchpad holds visual and spatial images. Their dual-task evidence showed that a concurrent digit-span load impaired reasoning, especially verbal reasoning, indicating differential interference between verbal and visuospatial systems rather than a single store. Neuroimaging supports this division: prefrontal regions are linked to executive control, left temporal-parietal areas to phonological processing, and right parietal-occipital areas to visuospatial processing. The episodic buffer binds verbal, visual and episodic information into coherent episodes, drawing on long-term memory. It allows integration of information across modalities and time.

(b) James-Lange and Cannon-Bard

James-Lange theory holds that emotion is the perception of bodily changes: a stimulus first produces physiological arousal—trembling, sweating, increased heart rate—and the brain interprets this peripheral feedback as emotion; we feel afraid because we tremble. The causal chain is stimulus → bodily response → feeling. Cannon-Bard theory rejects this sequence. It argues that the thalamus receives sensory input and simultaneously sends signals to the cortex, where the subjective feeling occurs, and to the autonomic nervous system, where physiological expression occurs. Thus emotion and bodily response are parallel, not dependent on feedback. Cannon’s critique was that visceral changes are too slow to explain rapid emotion, are too similar across different emotions, and are not necessary: animals with spinal cord transection or surgically removed sympathetic trunks still showed emotional behaviour. Hence, James-Lange makes peripheral feedback the cause of emotion, while Cannon-Bard makes thalamic relay the common trigger of simultaneous feeling and expression.

(c) Intelligence and aptitude

Intelligence is the general capacity to learn, reason, solve problems and adapt to novel situations; it is usually measured by tests of verbal, numerical and spatial ability. Aptitude, by contrast, is the specific potential to acquire a particular skill or perform in a defined domain, such as musical, mechanical, clerical or artistic aptitude. Intelligence is broad and general; aptitude is narrow and task-specific. A person may have high general intelligence but low musical aptitude, or high mechanical aptitude despite average intelligence. A good intelligence test must be standardized in administration, scoring and time limits, so that all test-takers face equivalent conditions. It must be reliable, giving consistent scores over time and across items. It must be valid, measuring what it claims to measure through content, criterion and construct evidence. It needs representative and current norms, objective scoring, fairness across groups, and practicality. These features ensure that scores reflect ability rather than artefacts of administration.

(d) Determinants of personality

Personality is shaped by biological and socio-cultural determinants. Biological factors include heredity, temperament, brain structure and neurotransmitters. Eysenck’s PEN model links extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism to cortical arousal, autonomic reactivity and dopamine/serotonin systems. Indian twin studies have generally reported greater monozygotic than dizygotic similarity on personality traits, supporting a genetic contribution. Socio-cultural factors include family, parenting, caste, religion, education, occupation and urbanization. In India, Kuppuswamy’s socioeconomic status scale has been used to operationalize family class in studies of personality; such studies link parental education, occupation and income to differences in social behaviour and confidence. Indigenous research has also operationalised the triguna framework (sattva, rajas, tamas), as in Wolf's Vedic Personality Inventory, and Durganand Sinha showed how Indian family socialisation fosters interdependent, relational selves. Caste and religious community also transmit norms of conformity, assertiveness, gender roles and deference, while urbanization and schooling can promote individualism and achievement orientation. Thus personality in India is not merely inherited or culturally imposed; it is a product of biological predispositions interacting with caste, family and social institutions.

(e) Cognitive dissonance and attitude change

Cognitive dissonance is effective in changing attitude when a person performs a behaviour that conflicts with an existing belief and lacks sufficient external justification. Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had participants perform a boring task and then lie to another participant. Those paid only $1 rated the task as more interesting than those paid $20, because the low reward created dissonance that was reduced by changing the attitude. Aronson and Mills (1959) showed that women who underwent a severe initiation rated the group more favourably, because inconsistency was resolved by valuing the group. Post-decision studies show that after choosing between alternatives, people rate the chosen option more favourably to justify the decision. However, effectiveness is limited: self-affirmation theory shows that affirming other self-values can reduce dissonance without attitude change; individual differences in self-esteem and locus of control matter. Thus dissonance is a powerful but conditional mechanism of attitude change.