AICE Psychology Study Guide (20 studies)

Terms in this set (20)

Hypothesis- Won't find any overwriting set of behaviors that'll reveal the liars completely. There are too many individual differences. They believe they will not be able to tell who's lying/telling the truth for sure.
Cognitive Psychology- (area of psych) what goes on in brain
AIM- to determine if there are systematic behavioral indicators to distinguish between those who are telling lies and those telling the truth.
-To determine if cognitive load causes changes in behavior related to lying/telling truth.
-Cognitive load- having the mind loaded with other things going on in that person's life that can affect them
-Independent variable- questions on the video tape.
-Dependent variable- responses (all categories: any movement, "ums,"
gaze aversions, etc)
-Lab experiment because everything was controlled: the questions, interviews, suspects selected, the setting, etc
-Quasi experiment- the independent variable was not directly manipulated by the experimenter
Advantages- results can be compared/contrasted
-reliable, valid, replicable
Disadv.- low ecological validity- procedure isn't realistic
-not a representative sample- 16 suspects, no variety of races
Sample- 13 males, 3 females-4 juveniles-15 white, 1 punjabi
crimes: theft, arson, attempted rape, murder
-total of 65 video clips- tapes edited to show only lying or truth telling
-coders told to "code the video footage" (content analysis)
-coders not told about study- single blind test
-behaviors recorded: gaze aversion, blinking, head movements, speech disturbances, pauses, hand and arm movements (originally coded individually-self manipulations, hand-finger movements- but later grouped together)--everything was counted
-inter rater reliability- when both coders agree on things (like how many times the person blinked) If they don't agree, the study would have to be performed again
Aim- To show that memory is malleable. Is it possible to create a false memory of an event by adding post event info?
Memory- Memory is not only what the person has experienced but also combined with any information added after the event
Method- Questionnaire/booklet (mailed) and personal interviews
-Interviews included subjects and relatives of subjects to provide actual info about subject's childhood experiences (experiences that happened between 4-6 years of age)
-Certain questions relatives were asked- 1)Has the subject ever gotten lost in a shopping mall? 2) Who and when the subject went shopping with? 3) Type of stores shopped at?
-Interviews conducted in person or over the phone
Sample- 3 males, 21 females, ages 18-53; recruited by University of Washington Psych students
Procedure- Subjects were mailed a 5 pg booklet with instructions
-Booklet contained 4 short stories of events experienced by subject as a child (info provided by relative)
-3 events were true, 1 was the false memory
-3rd event always false- standardized the experiment
-Details about false event: 1) Lost for long time 2) child was crying 3) lost in a shopping mall at age 5 4) old lady helped child 5) taken back to family
-Subjects read events from booklets and wrote responses (wrote what they remember about the memory)
-Interviews conducted with subjects (2 interviews 2 weeks apart) to gain more detailed info face-to-face
-2 female interviews recorded responses
-Subjected rated their memory of each even on a Likert scale of 10 pts (1=very little memory, 10=very clear memory) and on a 5 pt scale (how likely they thought their memory would improve given more time to think about it)
Findings- 24 subjects rated 72 true events and remembered 49 (68%)
-24 subjects rated 24 false events and remembered 7 (29%) in the booklet and 6 (25%) in the 1st interview
-Subjects used more words to describe true events than false events
-75% resisted the memory of the false event
-Mean clarity ratings were higher for true events than false events for the 2 interviews
-After debriefing, subjects asked to pick which event was false. 19 out of 24 picked the false event
-Some subjects insisted they remembered the false event even after debriefing
-control of variables: order of questions on booklet/interviews
-2 raters for reliability
-restricted info from relatives
-quantitative data (rating scales) and qualitative data (open ended responses) in interviews and booklet
-Deception/informed consent
-extraneous variables- getting lost in a shopping mall is a common experience/demand characteristics (the false story is presented as a fact causing the subjects to believe that it's real, not question it)
-Small percentage accepted the false event (25%)
-Not a representative sample (only 24 subjects-3 males-no different races)
Discussion- Loftus has conducted similar experiences that proved memory to be malleable. Eyewitness testimony is subject to influence and can't be trusted. Memory isn't a snapshot of what actually occurred but a combination of actual events and info after that
Aim- if autistic people have theory of mind
Autism- wide spectrum disorder (ASD) Symptoms: Obsessions, repetitive behaviors, lack of social skills
1997 Eyes Task- succeeded in discriminating adults with Asperger's Syndrome (AS) and high functioning autism (HFA) from controls but suffered from psychometric problems. So another experiment was performed
A psychometric problem: Used basic emotions that were very contrasting. Revised version had a variety of emotions
Asperger's Syndrome- an ASD; restricted and obsessively repetitive patterns of behavior
Originally 40 questions, 4 dropped after testing
Participants: 25 AS/HFA males; 225 normal people from a town and Cambridge Univ.; 14 normal people with IQ's matched to AS/HFA's IQ
method- lab method
1.AS/HFA < normals (eyes test) Not normal people will score less than normals on that test
AS/HFA > normals (AQ) Not normal will score higher on autistic qualities test
Females will score higher than males on eyes test
females will score less than males on AQ test
AS/HFA: will score higher on AQ test than eyes test
AS/HFA scored less than normals on eyes test
AS/HFA scored more on AQ test than normals
females scored higher than males on eyes test
females scored less than males on AQ test
AS/HFA scored higher on AQ test than eyes test
-Modifications worked--2001 Eyes task is more sensitive and detects individual differences better
Discussion- AQ and eyes task correlated
-IQ and eyes task not correlated
-Autistic people are not unintelligent
-there are diff. kinds of intelligence
-social difficulties not correlated to IQ
Evaluation- Ecological validity (lab is not real life: low)--weakness, experimental validity (measures an autistic trait, not a normal one. high control over extraneous variables), reliable, replicable (pencil and paper test), qualitative and quantitative data --->Strengths
-Sample: not balanced
-Quantitative data- matters of fact, objective, scientific and replicable, useful for analysis and comparison
-Qualitative data- matters of opinion, subjective, lot of detail, hard to analyze=may be misinterpreted
AIM- Whether an individual needs to move themselves around at the same time as experiencing visual changes in order to develop perceptual skills
Hypothesis- self produced movement and concurrent visual feedback are essential for the development of visually guided behavior
Subjects: 10 pairs of kittens each from a diff litter. In each pair one was A (active) and one was P (passive)
-8 pairs (group X) kept in dark until 8-12 weeks. Exposed to apparatus for 3 hrs daily
-2 pairs (group Y) exposed 3 hrs daily from 2-10 weeks of age, to the patterned interior or lab while restrained- could move head but not body
-When not exposes all kittens kept in dark cages with mom and littler mates
method- lab method
-Kitten pair attached to apparatus (freely moving roundabout-movements controlled by A cat bc its body was firmly but flexibly attached to apparatus)
-Kitten A- rotate clockwise or anticlockwise around apparatus, go towards away or from center, move up or down, turn left or right
-Kitten P- firmly attached to roundabout but carried in a basket so only its head could move. This cat would be controlled by cat A's movement
Visually guided paw placement- kitten was held by person with its head and forelegs free and was carried down to the edge of the table. Kitten with normal visual experience-extended its paws ready to make contact with surface. Repeated 6 times
Avoidance of a visual cliff- kitten placed on a surface from which it can stay still or walk to shallow or deep side. normal cat- avoid deep side. Repeated 6 times.
Blink to an approaching object- kitten was held still in a standing position and person brought hand quickly to cat's face. normal cat- blinks in response
-Additional 3 tests:
Visual pursuit of a moving object- kitten was shown person's hand moving slowly in front of it. Movement of kitten's eyes was recorded. Normal cat- follows movement
Pupillary reflex to light- torch beam moved across eye and change in pupil size was noted. Normal cat- pupil shrinks in response
Tactual placing response- kitten held as in paw placement test but its front paws put against the vertical surface of table. Normal cat- responds by moving its paws to the horizontal surface
Strengths- controlled variables, valid, reliable
Weaknesses- ethics:used animals, low eco valid, not a rep. sample
-After exposure, cat A successfully showed visually guided paw placement while P failed to display response
-Blink response developed at the same time as placing response
-P group failed to perform visual paw placement
-P group crossed over to deep side-unable to discriminate between deep and shallow drops
Conclusion- you need self produced movement and concurrent visual feedback development of visually guided behavior (to have normal perceptual skills)
-They let the A cats out into a room and they were normally moving around
-They let the P cats out into a room and they were stumbling and running into things
-P cats developed perceptual skills after 48 hrs
-Held and Hein thought there could be an alternative explanation for their findings: deprivation could've caused atrophy which could've caused cat P's perceptual deficits (highly unlikely)
-differences could have been bc of emotional responses caused by the release from deprivation during testing (but probably not though)
obedience- willing to comply with the commands,orders, or instructions of those in authority
AIM- to investigate what level of obedience would be shown when participants were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person
purpose-to find out why ppl listen to authority figures (testing obedience) -Wanted to prove that white people were not like Germans- Nazis:they obeyed anyone (Hitler) to harm ppl
Hypothesis- whites aren't as obedient as Germans
Independent variable- the test that the teachers gave to student
Dependent variable-how the teachers reacted
Advantages- controlled variables, replicable, reliable, valid
Disadv.- low eco valid (nobody really does this, and all variables are controlled), ethical issues (teachers not aware what was really going on), not a rep. sample because there were no females or variety of race
sample- 40 males, age: 20-50yrs. Recruited from New Haven area. Obtained by newspaper and direct mail advertisement which asked for volunteers to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale Univ. (sample=weak b/c it's limited to 20-50 yr old males who read junk mail and the newspaper)
method- lab experiment
-40 males given award: $4.50 (told that payment was for coming to lab, regardless of what happened after they arrived)
-Milgram created a phony shock generator
-Victim-47yr old Mr. Wallace
-Participant asked to draw a slip of paper from hat to see what role he'd play (draw was rigged so participant was always the teacher and Wallace was always the learner)
-Teacher saw student being strapped into chair
-Teacher given example shock of 45 volts.
-TEST: teacher read a list of word pairs to student and then read the 1st word of each pair and waited for learner to respond with 2nd word
-Debriefed after
-Voltage scale: 15 to 450 volts. Wrong answer=increase of 15 volts. No answer=wrong
Main findings: everyone went ot 300 volts. 26 went to 450 volts. Only 1 participant refused to give shocks before 300 volts. At some point, all participants paused questioned the experiment. Some said they would refund the money for participating.
Conclusion- Milgram concluded that there are several levels to obedience. (prestigious setting-Yale, the payment, and the commitment that went with it, and the belief that the shocks weren't harmful)
Implications- tells us that people usually obey high authority figures even if they're doing something wrong
Issues-ethical issues: extreme emotional stress suffered by participants. (84% of participants said they were glad they did it)
Depersonalization- a loss of identity
Situational hypothesis- the argument that our behavior is due to the situations that we find ourselves in
Dispositional hypothesis- the opposite argument to the situational hypothesis. The argument that our behavior is due to the type of person that we are
pathology of power- the oppressive behavior shown by those who are given control over others
Pathological prisoner syndrome- the social deterioration shown by the prisoner and characterized by the depersonalization
AIM- to examine the effects of being assigned the role of either a prisoner or guard in a mock prison environment
method-lab experiment
Sample- 24 males selected from 75 people from a newspaper ad asking for volunteers to participate in a psychological study of prison life (reward: $15 per day)
-Took a self questionnaire about their background,families,etc to make sure they were "normal" --that's how 24 males were chosen
Procedure-Simulated prison was built in basement of psych department in Stanford Univ.--> 3 small cells with 3 prisoners to a cell. Each cell contained: a mattress, sheet, and pillow. A solitary confinement in a closet that was a part of the basement was smaller than the cell.
-Small enclosed rooms used as prison yard
-Cameras placed behind an observation screen to observe experiment
-24 participants were randomly chosen to be either a prison or a guard
-Participants were not told that they would get arrested (when they did, the experiments appeared in a cop car and arrested the participants)
Strengths- high ecological validity (simulation was very real), both quantitative and qualitative data collected
Weaknesses- ethical issues, not a rep. sample
Results-Participants were affected by their role so greatly that they seemed to believe in their assigned role and believed they were actually a guard or prisoner
-Finding- as time went on, everybody's outlook and mood became negative
-Evidence- when 5 prisoners had to be released early due to extreme depression, crying, and increased rage (example of ethical issues)
Conclusion-the loss of personal identity and loss of individuality, their name, clothes, appearance, behavior and history = behavior of prisoners and guards
-pathology of power- oppressive behavior shown by guards when put in control over prisoners
Issues- study become almost too real and bc of that the mood of the prison became negative and lead to prisoners becoming depressed which led to the end of the experiment
Purpose- to see if the diffusion of responsibility and bystander effect would take place in a public place
Hypothesis- the people would not react as they would when they were alone. Nobody would help if they were in a big group bc they thought someone else would take responsibility
Method- field study (subway in NY)
Advantages- natural responses (no demand characteristics), high eco valid. (shows what people would do in a different scenarios =)
Disadvantages- took a long time, not replicable, hard to control variables
Procedure- victim collapses on train during journey (total experiment took 2 months)
-Helped 1) after a short time or 2) after a number of minutes by old bystander
-victim is either black or white
-1st condition-victim is drunk (smells of liquor and carries liquor bottle in brown paper bag)
-2nd condition- victim acts sober but unsteady and carries black cane
-2 female observers recorded what happened
sample- everyone on the subway-45% black, 55% white, mean 45 on each train and 8.5 in critical area
Independent variables- drunk or cane; black or white; early, late, or no model; model initially sitting in the "critical area" or adjacent area; the number of people on the train
Dependent variables- time taken to help; race of the helper; % of trials in which passengers (subjects) left in the critical area; the number of comments made
results- 1. cane victim (any race) was helped more often and sooner than drunk victim (cane=100% help, drunk=82% help).
Tendency for the same race help in drunk condition.
Significantly more men helped than women.
the more ppl on the train, the greater chance of someone helping (AGAINST the diffusion of responsibility)
Initial position of model had no effect on helping behavior
as time went by, more comments made and more ppl left critical area
comments made by females: "it's for men to help him" "i wish i could help-i'm not strong enough"
-Piliavin suggests a cost-reward model of emotional arousal: empathy, being close to the emergency, length of time the emergency continues
-People try to reduce arousal: by helping, going to get help, leaving the scene, believing victim doesn't deserve help
Cognitive Appraisal: Costs/Rewards of helping or not helping: -cost of helping might be embarrassment or physical harm -cost of not helping might be guilt or blame from others -rewards of helping might be praise -rewards of not helping would be getting on with one's own business
Ethical issues- no debriefing (pretty much impossible)
Prejudice- means to pre-judge
Stereotypes-overall impressions based on the assumption that all members of a group possess similar attributes
Social discrimination-behavior toward or against a person or group based on prejudged perceptions of their characteristics
Aim- to investigate the minimal conditions in which prejudice and discrimination can occur
Hypothesis- people will be more prejudice than discriminating
Independent variable- groups; matrices
Dependent variable- amount of money given/assigned
Method- 2 lab experiments
Sample- 64 boys, 14-15yrs old from the same school
Procedure- Boys went to psych. lab in groups of 8 (all boys knew each other)
The 1st Experiment- served to establish an intergroup categorization. Second part was to assess the effects of that categorization on intergroup behavior
Procedure- in the first part, the boys were brought together in a lecture room and were told that the researcher was interested in the study of visual judgements
-40 clusters of varying numbers of dots were flashed on a screen
-the boys asked to estimate the number of dots in each cluster and to record each estimate
-after boys estimated, they were told that in judgements of this kind, some ppl consistently overestimated and some underestimated
-after judgements had been made they were "scored" by experimenter
-participants were told that researchers were interested in their decision making process and that they would be observed
-participants told they were going to be grouped on the basis of the visual judgements they had made.
-Randomly assigned: half to the "under estimators" half to "over estimators"
-Given instructions: the task would consist of giving other participants points which would be converted into real money at end of experiment
-Given a booklet containing 18pgs. Each page there were 14 boxes containing 2 numbers each- numbers in top row of matrix were rewards and penalties to be awarded to one person and those in the bottom were those to be awarded to another.
-They were required to make 3 types of choices: 1) in group choices- where both top and bottom row referred to members of the same group as the boy. 2) out group choices- both top and bottom row referred to members of the different group from the boy 3) intergroup choices- where one row referred to the boys' own group and one row referred to the other group
Results- in the intergroup choices, the large majority of participants gave more money to members of their own group. When the boys had an entirely in group or out group choice to make, they tended toward the point of max fairness
Conclusion- discrimination occurred as a result of simply designating in group/out group membership. Choices weren't made to maximize everyone's winning but instead to maximize group profts
2nd experiment procedure: Taijfel wanted to assess 3 things: 1) max joint profit-boy could give largest award to members of both groups. 2) max in group profit- boy could choose largest award for member of own group regardless of reward to boy from other group. 3)max difference- largest possible difference in gain between a member of in group and member of out group(in favor of in group)
Results- significant tendency to use max difference (even if in group lost points as long as difference was greater)
Conclusions- findings demonstrate that categorization into groups produces in group favoritism and discrimination towards the out group
Strengths-high level of control, valid.
Weaknesses- low eco valid (lab setting and unusual procedure/task), demand characteristics, not a rep. sample (all boys, all white, from same school, knew each other)
Explanation for findings- Social Identity Theory--suggests that participants favored their own group bc it increases self esteem
Aim- to find out if aggression was imitative. To investigate the effect of exposure to an aggressive model.
Hypothesis- 1) subjects exposed to aggressive models with reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of models. 2) boys will be more likely than girls toward imitating aggression 3)subjects will imitate the behavior of a same sex model to a greater degree than a model of opposite sex
Question- Nature vs. Nurture: Are we born aggressive or do we learn aggression?
Controlled variable- verbal aggression, violence (mallet)
Method- lab experiment
Sample- 72 children from Stanford Univ Nursery School: 36 boys, 36 girls with mean age of 4 yrs and 4 months ---Two adult role models (one male and female and a female experimenter)
Procedure: there were 3 conditions (24 kids in each condition)--- 1) non aggressive, aggressive, control
-8 experimental groups each with 6 subjects and control group of 24 subjects.
- 1)Boys with either male or female aggressive model. 2) Boys with male or female non-aggressive model. 3) girls with either male or female aggressive model. 4)girls with either a male or female non aggressive model.
-Children tested individually
-Rating scales- 1)physical aggression 2)verbal aggression 3) aggression toward inanimate objects 4) aggressive inhibition
Findings- responses from kids that were similar to display by adult model:
imitative for physical aggression 2) imitative very aggression 3)imitative non aggressive verbal responses
-2 types of behavior that weren't imitations of adult model: 1) punches to Bobo 2) non imitative physical/verbal aggression 3)aggression gun play
Results- kids who saw aggressive model = aggressive acts than kids who saw non aggressive models
-boys more aggressive than girls
-boys in aggressive conditions showed more aggression if model was male than female
-girls in aggressive conditions also showed more physical aggression if model was male but more verbal is model was female
Strengths- valid, replicable, reliable, controlled variables
Weaknesses- ethics (informed consent, no debriefing), low eco valid., reductionism (kids may be naturally aggressive or in a household with aggression or no aggression-all these variables can affect experiment), not a rep. sample (all toddlers)
AIM- to treat little Hands-a little boy who was suffering from anxiety and phobias (Freud used this case study to support his psychoanalytic ideas)
Method- case study-over the phone
-Hans' dad provided Freud w/ details of convos with Hans
-Freud and the dad tried to understand what the boy was experiencing to resolve his phobias
-When Hans was 3 he developed an interest in his widdler and of other people.
-Main theme of his fantasies/dreams was widdlers and widdling
-He was about 3 1/2 yrs old when his mom told him to stop playing with his widdler or the doc would cut it off
-hated baby sis--developed phobia of bath
-developed fear of horses--overhead his dad say that the white horse will bite your finger--also saw a horse pulling a carriage fall down and kick with hind legs (feared carts and busses after that)
-Hans expressed anxiety that his mom would leave him (abandonment)
Hans' fantasies: -being the father of his kids and made them widdle. -Hans was dad of his kids w/ his mom and dad was grandad
-after last fantasy and "help" he got from Freud, the anxieties and phobias and psychoanalysis came to end
Method of analysis- Freud actually never treated Hans-all help was received from his dad) Inferring the unconscious causes of Hans behavior through interpretation and decoding of psychoanalytic symbols
-confronting Hans with these unconscious causes by telling them about them and discussing them consciously
Psychoanalytic ideas:
-Unconscious determinism- Freud says ppl aren't aware of their motives. Hans wasn't aware of sources of his behavior/dreams
-The Oedipus Complex- Freud says: in the phallic stage boys direct their sexual feelings toward their moms and see dads as rivals and therefore fear castration.
-Cause of phobias- phobias caused by unconscious anxiety being displaced onto harmless external objects. Little Hans unconscious fear of being castrated by his dad was displaced as a fear of being bitten by white horses
-Oedipus Complex-- Hans feared his mom would abandon him (interpreted this as anxiety caused by sexual arousal of sleeping in his mom's bed), Fear of bath (death wish for sis), Taking small giraffe from big giraffe (taking mom from dad), Fear of heavily loaded cart (fear of mom being pregnant), Fear of being bitten by horse (castration fear)
Strengths- case study (pro useful for therapeutic reasons), large amount of data, in depth, Hans didn't have to go there
Weaknesses- not a rep. sample (not everyone is the same), time consuming, not replicable, can't operationalize and measure in any scientific way such concept as displacement=not valid, secondary source data (got info from dad, never talked to Hans)
Attractiveness-Nature vs. Nurture.
-Nurture- are preferences for attractiveness culturally transmitted? -longer necks -bound feet -painted skin -dyed hair -thin -fat -flattened or enlarged breasts
-Nature- youthful, healthy, symmetrical, average features
Hypothesis- attractive > unattractive
Study 1- Aim: to replicate previous results with adult female stimuli. To extend results to males. To investigate whether manner in which male and female faces are presented influences infant preferences
-Sample- 60 six month old infants (53 were white)
-Method- lab experiment
-each infant saw slides of 16 adult female and males (white). Half of slides of each gender had attractive faces and other half unattractive faces
-faces were judged by experiments to see which faces were attractive/unattractive using a likert scale
-Sample's faces- neutral expressions, all male faces clean shaven, hair back, no makeup, no jewelry---standardized (strength)
-infant on parent's lap. parent wore occluded glasses so they couldn't influence the baby's decision
-a light and buzzing noise was there to keep baby's attention
-each slide lasted for 10seconds
-order: random. A slide of an attractive face could be paired with any slide of an unattractive face of the same sex
-duration and direction of looks were recorded. person recording: could see televised image of infant to observe visual fixation but couldn't see the slides
-Study 1 results: infants looked longer at attractive faces than unattractive. Infant preferences for attractive faces were evident for adult male&female faces. boys looked long at males, girls looked longer at females (not significantly different). Mother's attractiveness didn't make a difference
Study 2- Aim: to extend findings to non white faces. Infants shown faces of black adult women. (faces were rated for attractiveness by both black and white judges)
-Sample- 40 sic month old infants (36 white)
-Presentation- black adult female faces, rest of procedure same as study 1
-Study 2 results- infants looked longer at attractive than unattractive.
Study 3- to extend findings to infant faces
-Sample- 39 six month old infants (36 white)
-Presentation-3 month old baby faces. Rest of procedure as in study 1.
-Study 3 results- infants looked longer at attractive than unattractive
Explanation- beauty is nature not nurture
Discussion- beautiful faces are prototypical
cultural transmission- the way a group of people tend to learn and pass on info
Purpose/Aim- to see whether stimulation of body changes by injections of adrenalin would produce feelings of emotion. To look at effects of vitamin injections on visual skills, and were asked if they would mind having an injection of suproxin (made up name)
Two factor theory of emotion- emotion comes from a combo of a state or arousal and a cognition that makes best sense of the
3 Propositions: 1) if person experiences state or arousal without immediate explanation, label this state, describe feelings. Each could be diff (joy,fury,etc). 2)if person experiences state of arousal with appropriate explanation--not labeled feelings. 3) in similar situations, a person will react emotionally or experience emotions only if they are in a state of arousal
Method- lab experiment
Advantages- valid, high level of control, quantitative data
Disadvantages- the shot may have caused probs, some people figured it out, low eco valid, ethical concerns, not replicable (may not be allowed now)
Procedure- To look at effects of vitamin injections on visual skills, and were asked if they would mind having an injection of suproxin (made up name).
-If agreed, then asked if they minded an injection of adrenalin (epinephrine) or a placebo.
-Effects of adrenalin- increases BP, heart rate, blood sugar level, respiration, blood flow to muscle and brain, decrease in blood flow to skin, palpitations, tremors, flushing, faster breathing
-effects being after 3 min. last for 10min-1hr
-Then subjects put in 1 of 4 experimental conditions: 1)ignorant- subjects given adrenalin and not told effects of drug. 2)informed- subjects given adrenalin with side effects 3)misinformed- subjects given adrenalin and told to expect side effects but were told these would be numb feet and headache 4)placebo- subjects given injection-no effect
-3 IV's , physiological arousal, cognitive explanations^^
Euphoria- subject left in room for 20min with stooge to let drug be absorbed before vision test (stooge=standardizing)
Anger- left for 20min with questionnaire with offensive questions with a stooge who acted angry
Observer could see subject, subject couldn't see observer. Strength- no demand characteristics. Weakness- observer can't tell what the person is exactly feeling by emotions bc people may express different emotions in different ways than other ppl
Sample- 185 males
Results- subjects who received injections (adrenalin) = clear feelings of arousal in comparison with placebo people.
-Scale- likert scale (not angry-->very angry, not happy-->very happy)
-all questionnaires = happy not angry
-adrenalin- diff people react in diff ways
Reductionism- person may have been extremely upset or very happy about something that happened the day before causing their mood to be the way it was
REM- Rapid eye movement
EEG- Electroencephalograph- device used to measure/record brain waves (physiological equipment)
N-REM: when you're sleeping the time that you aren't in REM sleep
Aim- figure out relationship between eye movements and dreaming
3 Hypothesis- 1)there will be a significant association between REM sleep and dreaming. 2) will be a significant positive correlation between the estimate of the length of the dream and the length of eye movement 3) will be a pattern between the eye movement and context of the dream
Sample- 9 people: 7 males, 2 females. only 5 studied intensely.
Strength- small sample easier to work with
Weakness-too small of a sample = not a rep. sample
Method- lab experiment
Strengths- control, accurate measurements (EEG), reliable, replicable
Weakness- no total control, conditions may cause behavior that lacks eco valid., (low eco valid-subjects interrupted during night to take notes,etc), results can be biased, ethical issues
Procedure- Subjects told to avoid alcohol/caffeine for a day before they came to lab (so it wouldn't affect data). 2 or more electrodes attached near eyes to record electrical change and movement of eyes. More electrodes attached to scalp to record brain activity during night (another ex. of low eco valid). Subjects woken up to test dream recall. Returned to sleep-took less than 5 in. 9 subjects studied for 61 nights with total of 351 awakenings which averaged out 5.7 awakenings per night.
Results- all subjects showed period of REM every night. REM period- 90min. (dreamt during REM)
-REM patterns- Vertical eye movements (climbing latter). Horizontal eye movements (watching a tennis match). Both. or very little to none.
-REM-2nd stage of sleep, you're dreaming, lighter sleep compared to deep sleep, movement of eyes related to dream
-Subjects more likely to remember dream when in REM sleep. (152 recall dreams recorded during REM sleep, and only 11 recall dreams recorded in non-REM sleep)
-Experiment 2- subjects randomly awakened either 5 or 15min into REM sleep and were asked if they were dreaming for 5 or 15min.
-when woken after 5 min, 45 correctly said they had been dreaming for 5min. 6 got it wrong.
-after 15min of REM sleep, 47 were able to correctly state they had been dreaming for 15min. 13 got it wrong.
-Experiment 3- subjects awakened after they showed 1 of the 4 main patterns of eye movements. Then asked to describe what they were dreaming about. Eye movements related to content of dreams
Conclusion- study was success
-1st question asked: are people more likely to remember dreams in REM sleep-answer: they were.
-question 2- can people accurately estimate dream length...and many did.
-question 3- does the direction of eye movement have anything to do with content of dreams? yes
PET scan- positron emission tomography scan; don't show neural activity, shows blood flow. "Hotspot switches" (on and off) look same on scan. With practice, brain activity on task decreases. Sensitive machine. Must inject enough radioactive material. Noise in surrounding can mess it up. It's large&expensive.
MRI- magnetic resonance imaging
AIM- Investigate the neural basis for spatial memory
Method- Using PET scan, measure neural activity during topographical (space/location) semantic (facts/language) memory tasks
Sample- 11 London taxi drivers. Average age- 45yrs. Avg experience-14.5yrs (strength). Informed written consent.
Procedure- 2 factors of interest: topographical and sequencing memory.
-WHY- to distinguish brain activity during route planning from brain activity during other types of memory task
-Tasks- describe... -routes (shortest legal) T+ S+
-landmarks (not in London) T+ S-
-film plots (famous) T- S+
-film frames (stills) T- S-
-4 digit numbers (baseline comparison task)
T+ T-
S+ Routes Film plots
S- Landmarks Film frames
-Controls- repeat 4 digit number as baseline comparison test. Participants blinded throughout. Speech output digitally recorded. Identical procedure for each participant.
-PET scans- data gathered over 90 seconds following radioactive injection. during each scan 1 item is presented (example: one route)
-Routes recall- increased activation of right hippocampus, parietal lobe, cortex
-Landmarks recall- increased activation of parietal lobe and cortex but not right hippocampus
-Film plots vs. frames- no significant difference
Understanding- the evidence supports that semantic topographical memory retrieval is associated with the right hippocampus
-routes and landmarks = topographical
-film tasks = non topographical
-increased activation of parietal lobe and other brain areas during topo. tasks
-routes and plots = sequential
-landmarks and frames = non sequential
-entirely different brain regions are activated during topp. and non topo. memory retrieval
-the role of the right hippocampus is processing spatial layouts over long time periods
both topo tasks (routes/landmarks) activated many of same brain areas
main difference- activation of right hippocampus in routes task, not in landmarks task
Strengths- physiological approach (PET), valid
Weaknesses- big and expensive equipment (PET), injection (ethics), not a rep. sample (only 11 male taxi drivers from London)
AIM- to investigate whether olfactory cues can influence people's judgments of facial attractiveness
Hypothesis- a pleasant vs. unpleasant odor can modulate female's ratings of the perceived attractiveness of briefly presented male faces
Sample- 16 females, age: 20-32yrs. Completed a questionnaire to make sure they had normal sense of smell, no history of olfactory disfunction and normal vision.
-WHY choose females? Previous research says that females are more sensitive to effects of olfactory cues than males
Materials- 40 male faces for visual stimuli (standardized).
-4 odors: 2 pleasant (geranium and male cologne) and 2 unpleasant (rubber and male body odor) (and clean air in between smells/slides)---smells delivered using an olfactometer
Method- lab experiment (repeated measures design)
-3 blocks of 40 random trials (each person completed 120 trials)
-each face randomly presented 3 times during each session (once with pleasant odor, once w/ unpleasant odor, once with neutral odor-clean air)
-Participant sat staring at a computer with their chins on a chin rest. Told to look at a fixed mark on screen.
-Exhale through nostrils when they heard a quiet tone, and inhale when they heard a louder tone (that's when odor was released)
-Had to indicate if an odor had been released or not by using the keyboard
-1 second later, 1 of the faces appeared for 1/2 second in the center of the screen
-Face disappeared=odor stopped=clean air delivered
-screen turned black after
-9 point rating scale (Likert scale) appeared and participants had to rate the attractiveness of face. 1=least attractive 9=most attractive
-In the end, each participant asked to smell odors individually and to rate each odor (odor intensity, pleasantness, and familiarity) using pen and paper (Labeled Magnitude Scale: 0-100)
-Order of presentation of odors and scales was randomized between participants
-Counterbalancing-the order was randomized so that participants could not detect a specific pattern of odors and slides---the set of 40 faces divided into 4 groups of 10 faces each (5 high attractiveness and 5 low) with close to the same mean attractiveness. Each group presented with 1 diff. possible combo of pleasant-unpleasant odors-counterbalanced across participants
-Each participant rated: 1) 10 faces presented with clean air, geranium odor, and body odor. 2) 10 faces with clean air, perfume, and rubber odor. 3) 10 faces with clean air, geranium odor, and rubber odor 4) 10 faces with clean air, male perfume, and body odor
-Experiment lasted about 50min
Results/Findings- Faces were found significantly less attractive when presented together with unpleasant odor than when presented with either pleasant odor or clean air. Didn't matter if odor was body relevant.
-No sig. difference between pleasant v. neutral clean air
Discussion- smell matters...presence of olfactory cues can exert a small, but significant, influence on people's judgements of a variety of non-olfactory stimulus attributes/qualities
Strengths- controlled, counterbalanced to control for order effects, replicable, reliable, valid
Weaknesses- not a rep. sample, demand characteristics, halo effect, low eco valid.
Halo effect- tendency to assign generally positive or negative traits to a person after observing one specific pos/neg trait
pseudo patient- a researcher pretending to be a patient
Aim- to investigate whether the perception of normality and abnormality is determined by situational factors or can sanity and insanity be distinguished
Sample- Hospital staff from 12 diff. hospitals; 8 pseudo patients (3 women, 5 men)
Strengths- hospitals didn't know anything about research, varying ages and occupations, high eco valid, generalizable, both types of data
Weakness- small sample, consent wasn't given, ethical issues, not a lot of control, question of reliability (they admitted them into hospital bc of symptoms believing they were true)
Method- field experiment but uses participant observation
-Made appointments complaining they were hearing voices (empty, hollow, thud-unfamiliar voice but of same sex)
-Gave false name and job but all other info was true to the patient
-After being admitted, they acted normal.
-Took part in ward activities including speaking to staff and other patients
-When asked how there were feeling, they said they were fine and weren't experiencing any of the symptoms
-False diagnosis of schizophrenia
-Took notes daily
-If they tried talking to physicians, they were ignored
Secondary experiment- the staff of a teaching hospital (aware of first study) were falsely informed that during the next 3 months 1 or more pseudo patients would try to be admitted to the hospital. Staff members asked to rate 1-10 on the likelihood of each patient being a pseudo patient
Results- pseudo patients weren't detected by staff. Released with diagnoses of schizophrenia in remission. Normal behaviors interpreted within context of schizophrenia
Conclusion- psychiatrists cannot reliably tell difference between people who are sane or insane
MPD- "sudden, temporary alteration in the normally integrated functions of consciousness, identity or motor behaviour"
Differences between MPD and Schizophrenia: 1) MPD-hearing voices is only hallucination, not major symptom. Schiz.-lots of type of hallucinations. 2) MPD-amnesia. Schiz.-no amnesia. 3) MPD treated psychologically (therapy) Schiz. treated physiologically (drugs)
Method- case study, irregular intervals (subject lived 100 miles away)
Subject- Chris Sizemore--eve white
Diagnosis- referred to Thigpen for severe headaches/black outs
Problems- complex marital problems, nothing unusual
Eve White had a recent trip but no memory = fugue
The Letter-
-Docs explored her memory with hypnosis
-docs received unsigned letter (eve white's handwriting). Last paragraph written by someone else (child handwriting) but written by her
-not a prank-eve white = not a joker
-eve white denied sending letter- started one, but thought she destroyed it
-Eve showed distress-admitted hearing voices
-Docs suspected schiz. but then "Eve white held her head as if in pain. When she let go she brightly and said 'hi there, doc.' (eve black-diff from eve white. more childish, carefree, excitement seeking)
The 2 personalities- Eve black existed since childhood. White unaware of black's existence. EW unconscious when EB dominant- but EB aware of EW, can follow her thoughts/actions. EB has no compassion for EW (marital distress is silly)-EB denies her marriage/daughter-seeks excitement/danger. EB has no deep feelings, EW very emotional. Completely opposites. EW confirms some of EB's stories-but EB is a liar and often tells untruths for fun or mischief.
Eve Black- coming out since childhood; bought clothes which angered EW's husband; got EW into trouble by lying--EW recalled unjust punishments; able to alter EW's memories
14 months of treatment, 100 hrs of interviews
Tests: 1) psychometric tests (IQ/memory) 2) projective tests (Rorschach inkblot test) and 3) physiological (EEG)
Results of test-
-EW- Psychometric- high IQ, projective-repression; anxiety,least healthy; behavior- reserved
-EB- psychometric- different IQ (lower than EW); projective- regression,hysterical,healthy; behavior- irresponsible and pleasure seeking
After 8 months of no headaches and less problems from EB, JANE appears. Headaches and black outs return-EW found unconscious by friends. EB shares black outs. Interview- Even appears to fall asleep...2min later says in a new voice: who are you? JANE.
Jane- more adjusted than the other 2, more normal. Aware of what both Eves do and think but not all their memories. Only comes out through EW. They suggested that if Jane took over completely, she could live a healthy life
Other explanations- clever actress. EEG, IQ and memory differences are objective, difficult to fake over long period of time.
Resolutions- Jane remarried...EB grew less active...4th personality: Evelyn began to emerge...
-T/C traced "splitting" to trauma in childhood when she witnessed 2 deaths and a horrific accident-also incident where aunt made her kiss dead grandma
Discussion- Experimenter bias in interviews (found EB more attractive). Ethics-who has the right to decide which personality to keep
Is there a way to test cognitive style?
(Math/science= mean VS. english/history/humanities=women)
Cognitive style predicts entry into physical sciences and humanities
Method-questionnaires (to find out cognitive style) and online performance tests
tests empathizing and systemizing
how do you think? logical/rational/intuitive/instinctive
Empathizing- cognitive and affective components-understanding another's mind
Systemizing- analyzes rules which underlie systems--input->operation->output
Left side of brain-systemizing. Right side of brain=empathizing
SQ= systemizing quotient EQ=empathizing quotient
Evaluate method- weak (objectivity, experimental valid.). Turning qualitative into quantitative data, reductionism,etc)
ES Theory- males and females are either E or S
original study- only questionnaires, no performance measures.
new study-has performance measures
AIMS- to test if cognitive style has a bigger role than the sex of a person in explaining enrollment in courses
Sample- 415 college students from online. They were emailed to see if they would do it, and were rewarded. Tested if right or left handed-more than 87% right handed. Picked only normal people.
Procedure- 2 questionnaires, 2 online performance tests.
-Evaluate-- experimental valid=low, reliable-yes, convenient (online), quick and easy
-5 brain types- xE, B, S, xS
-1st performance test- Embedded figure test (forced choice of 2, 20 seconds, tests what? systemizing)
-2nd test- Reading in the mind of the eyes (tests? empathizing, forced choice of 4)
-Scoring-reflects error rate and reaction time.
0-24 for FC-EFT (forced choice embedded theory test) (12 items)
0-72 for eyes test (36 items)
-59% science ppl were male, 70% of humanities ppl were female
-females did better on eyes test. no sig. diff. on embedded test.
AIM- to help BDD patients. Find cure. To learn more about the psychological disease.
Method- self report mirror gazing questionnaires
How it started- patient came in and said he had stared at himself for 6 hrs.
Sample- 52 patients with BDD who reported mirror gazing to be a problem. Group of 55 controls. Groups were sex and age matched. Pilot study revealed that there are 2 types of mirror gazing : long and short sessions
Procedure- subjects given questionnaire. Instructions informed them that we were interested in the feelings they had while mirror gazing for past 1 month.
-Long session- longest time during the day that the person spends in front of mirror (ex-putting on makeup/shaving). If subject had at least 1 long session, they were asked to answer Q's about a typical long sesh. same Q's asked about short sesh.
-Questions- 1)the avg. duration of a long sesh in minutes. 2)estimated max amount of time on any 1 occasion that he/she spent in front of mirror in hrs/min. 3)avg duration and frequency of a short sesh in front of mirror in last month.
-Motivation before looking into mirror- 1)I have to know for certain how I appear in public. 2) I need to see what I like about myself. 3) Can make myself look better.
-Likert scale (1-5) 1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) Subjects asked to rate ^^^
-Same Q's for short sehs.
-Focus of attention- subjects asked the location of their concentration.Distress before and after looking in front of mirror: Likert scale- 0=not distressed, 10=extremely distressed
-Asked to rate distress after looking and after resisting the urge to look.
-MISTAKE- not rating degree of distress after resisting the urge for a short sesh.
-Behavior in front of mirror- 1)try to hide defects 2)style hair, 3)feel skin, 4)practice best position to appear in public
-type of reflective surfaces- TV's screens, back of CDs
Results- 84% of BDD ppl and 30% of controls reported long sesh. (BDD had longer long sesh.). 86% of BDD ppl and 80% of controls reported short sesh (BDD checked mirror more frequently)