Psychology: Physiological psychology: Taxi drivers brain activity

Psychology: Physiological psychology: Taxi drivers brain activity

Authors: Maguire et al. (1997)

Key term: Taxi drivers

Background/ Context: The invention of technology such as PET and MRI scanners has led to many studies on brain regions and activity. Topographical memory is the knowledge of landscapes and the spatial relationship between them - a cognitive (mental) map we have inside our heads. Maguire's study is on semantic topographical memory and what brain regions are responsible for it.
PET: Positron Emission Tomography.
Semantic memory: General world knowledge we have

Aim/ Hypothesis;

1. Confirm findings of other studies that specific brain regions are responsible for semantic topographical memory retrieval. 
2. Determine which specific region of the brain is responsible for landmark knowledge when location information is not needed (topographical memory without sequencing).
3. Study topographical and non-topographical semantic memory to see if there is brain region that is activated for both. 

Method: Laboratory experiment with pre-study questionnaire

• Participants filled out a questionnaire asking them about:
  -Areas of London they were familiar with.
  -Films they were familiar with from a list of 150 films from 1939 to the present day.
  -20 world famous landmarks participants could visualize but had never visited.
• This would let experimenters choose the most appropriate routes, landmarks and films they wanted the participants to describe.
• Pilot study done with non-participating taxi drivers before this experiment to make sure the tasks and equipment were fit for the study.

Variables:

Independent variables

• Main variables: Topographical and Sequencing.
• The participants completed 6 tasks, each done twice. However only 5 of those tasks are used in this study.

1. Baseline task - Repeat two sets of 4 digit numbers (to compare simple level of activity to the 4 other tasks).
2. Describe the shortest route from one point to another in the City of London (same route for all participants, one they were familiar with) (topographical and sequencing).
3. Describe a landmark in terms of features, appearance, etc (Same landmark for all participants, one they all knew) (topographical and non-sequencing).
4. Describe the plot of a famous film between two given points of the film. (familiar to all participants) (non-topographical and sequencing).
5. Describe individual frames of some famous films eg. imagery, characters, etc. (familiar to all participants) (non-topographical and non-sequencing). 

Dependent variable: Region/s of brain activated.

Design: Repeated measures - Factorial design

• Orders of tasks randomized for each participant and counterbalanced against each other.

Participants and sampling technique:

• 11 right handed male taxi drivers.
• Minimum of 3 years experience driving, average was 12.5 years.
• Average age 45 years.

Apparatus:

• London route from Grosvenor Square to the elephant and castle.
• World famous landmarks
• Films with still frames
• Siemens PET scanner
• H2 15 O bolus (radioactive isotope for scanning) and saline flush to remove isotope from body.

Controls:

• Landmarks chosen were places participants never visited in person, so they were not sequential memories.
• Films chosen had been watched by participants at least 5 times, so they were all familiar with them.
• Scanner procedure and injections given were the same for each participant.
• Pilot study done to ensure all tasks are fit for purpose.

Procedure:

1. Participant filled out pre-study questionnaire.
2. Participant arrived at the laboratory and cannula (tube for delivering fluid) was inserted in his arm. Participant was blindfolded and placed in scanner.
3. Participant received H2 15O bolus injection through cannula (which takes 20 seconds to enter bloodstream). This was followed by a saline flush (which also takes 20 seconds). 
4. Scan frame time was 90 seconds (H2 15O has a half life of 2 minutes). 1 of the 5 tasks was presented and the participant had to give a description of the route, landmark, film plot or frame, which was digitally recorded. MRI was also taken for each taxi driver,
5. After the task was completed their would be an 8 minute wait before another task was done.
6. Steps 3, 4 and 5 repeated 12 times (2 times for each study including another task for another study not in this paper). 
7. Participant was debriefed and study was complete.

Data: Quantitative data - rCBF (Regional cerebral blood flow) would flow to areas of brain activated, which would be recorded by the PET scanner, interpreted and analysed. 3D images of the PET scanner show exactly which brain region is involved in each process.

Findings:

• No difference in amount of speech per participant (around 50 seconds).
• Very few differences in route chosen by participants.

1. Routes (T+ S+): Right hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, cerebellum, media parietal lobe, posterior cingulate cortex, extrastriate regions.
2. Landmarks (T+ S-): Parahippocampal gyrus, posterior cingulated cortex, medial parietal lobe, occipito-temporal region, cerebellum.
3. Films (plot and frames - T- S+ and T- S-): Left frontal region, cerebellum, middle temporal gyrus, left angular gyrus.

• Cerebellum activated in all activities. 
• The parahippocampal gyrus and medial parietal lobe were used for both topographical activities. However, the right hippocampus was only activated in the route activity - topographical and sequencing.

Conclusion:

• Regions of topographical semantic memory similar as those in previous studies.
• Right hippocampus used for sequential route planning.

Strengths:

• Laboratory experiment - High level of control - pilot questionnaire, routes, landmarks and films chosen - easily replicated to test for reliability.
• Laboratory experiment - High level of control - confidence the type of tasks directly affected brain function - IV directly affects DV - baseline task, type of tasks.
• Technological equipment - lack of human error 
• Testing physiological aspects (brain function) - can be generalized to wider population, as majority of humans have similar brain structures.

Weaknesses:

• Laboratory experiment - Artificial setting - Participants were tested whilst undergoing a PET scan, which is not a normal setting for recalling memory, therefore this experiment may not have ecological validity
• Laboratory experiment - Lacks mundane realism - Participants were blindfolded and asked to recall memories during a PET scan, which is not a normal task people do in daily life.
• Can't be generalized - Participants were all taxi drivers - It is possible the right hippocampus in sequential topographical memories is only crucial in taxi drivers.

Psychology: Physiological psychology: Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state

Psychology: Physiological psychology: Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state

Author: Schachter and Singer (1962)

Key term: Emotion

Background/context: 

• Earlier theories suggested that emotion was only based on physiological factors.
  Different theories of emotion.
• Two factor theory (cognitive labeling theory): Schachter believed that emotion is a result of both physiological and psychological (cognitive) components. This involves the individual giving reasoning to their physiological arousing and labelling it as a certain emotion.

Aim/Hypothesis: To test these 3 propositions:

1. When someone experiences a state of physiological arousal with no immediate explanation, they will label it depending on the physical cognitions available. So the same state of arousal (eg. Increased heartbeat) could receive different labels (eg. Joy/anger) depending on the physical aspects of the situation (eg. a scary animal or your boyfriend)
2. If someone experiences a state of physiological arousal for which they have an explanation for, they will label it appropriately and not be affected by other physical factors.
3. In the same circumstances, someone will describe their feelings as emotions, but only to the extent that they feel a state of physiological arousal.

Method: Laboratory experiment with observation and self-report.

Variables: 

Independent variables:

All participants were told they were being tested for the effect of Suproxin on vision, but Suproxin is a fictional made up drug and they were actually being injected with Epinephrine.

Epinephrine is a drug which almost always perfectly mimics stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system: increase in blood pressure, slight increase in heart rate,  slight increase in respiration. Major symptoms are palpitations, tremors and sometimes a flushed feeling. These effects usually begin 3-5 minutes after the injection and last for 15-20 minutes.

1. EPI INF (Epinephrine informed): Injected with epinephrine and told the real side effects (palpitations, tremors, warm feeling). Information was reinforced by a doctor.
2. EPI IGN (Epinephrine ignored): Injected with epinephrine and experimenter said nothing about side effects. Doctor said the injection was mild and harmless and would have no side effects.
3. EPI MIS (Epinephrine misinformed): Injected with epinephrine and told they would feel side effects from the Suproxin such as feet feeling numb, itchiness and a slight headache, that would last 15-20 minutes. None of these are the actual symptoms.
4. Placebo (control): Injected with Saline solution (salt solution) which have no side effects and were not told anything. 

Explanatory cognitions:

1. Euphoria: Immediately after injection experimenter left and the doctor returned with a stooge (actor), who he said was another participant. They were brought to a room and told they had to wait 20 minutes while the Suproxin kicked in, and the doctor apologized for the messy room. The stooge began acting according to a script consisting of 15 behaviors such as making paper airplanes, playing with the hula hoop, initiating a basketball game, etc).
2. Anger: Began the same way as the euphoric condition, but the participant and stooge were asked to spend the 20 minutes filling out a questionnaire. Before starting, stooge would state it was unfair to not be told about the injection beforehand. The 5 page questionnaire starts of innocent but grows more and more intrusive and personal. The stooge makes standardized comments about the questionnaire, becoming more argumentative and angry. Eventually, when he gets to the question asking about frequency of sexual intercourse, he rips up his paper and storms out the room.

Participants in EPI INF, EPI IGN and the placebo all experimented one of the two euphoric or anger conditions. EPI MIS participants only experienced the anger conditions, making 7 conditions. 

Participants were randomly allocated to 1 of the 7 conditions.

Dependent variable: Participants emotional state: 

• Observation through a one way mirror during the experiment - eg. Would participant join in the euphoric stooge's games?
• Self-report on various measures after the experiment before the debriefing - eg. Questions such as "How irritated would you say feel at the present?"

Design; Independent groups - If a participant was to repeat any condition they would know the real aim of the experiment and respond falsely.

Participants and sampling technique: 184 males from the University of Minnesota. All had volunteered to be in a subject pool. They received 2 extra points in the final exam for every hour they took part in the experiment. All participants were cleared by the student health service to make sure the injection would not be harmful to them. 1 participant refused the injection,  11 participants had been very suspicious after the experiment and in 5 participants the epinephrine had no effect at all. So only 167 participants data was used for the findings.

Apparatus:

• Private room with a one way mirror 
• 'Suproxin' ie. epinephrine (adrenaline)
• Placebo ie. Saline solution
• Euphoria condition: paper, rubber bands, hula hoop, waste paper basket. 
• Anger condition: Questionnaire with intrusive questions

Controls:

• All participants given an injection
• All participants in each condition followed the same procedure
• The stooge repeated the same behaviour for each condition, saying and doing the same things at the same time, following a standardized script.
• Observations were conducted by two observers (inter-rater agreement was high).

Procedure:

1. Each participant was taken to the private room and given an injection of either epinephrine or saline solution .They were told they were injected with suproxin to test vision. 
2. If participant agreed, a doctor would come into the room and administer the injection. 
3. Participants given 1 of 3 sets of instructions depending on their allocated condition: EPI INF, EPI MIS or EPI IGN/placebo. 
4. Participant was then taken to another room and told to wait with another participant (actually a stooge) and told to wait for 20 minutes while the suproxin was absorbed into their bloodstream.
5. The stooge would act accordingly depending on the condition: euphoric or angry. 
6. Experimenter enters room and hands out questionnaire for 'feedback on effect of suproxin' (self report).
7. Experimenter debriefs participants (11 of the participants data was discarded because participants admitted they were very suspicious of the experiment). 

Data: Quantitative data was collected

• Observation: Objective data collected through one-way mirror by two observers, coded into categories. 
• 4 euphoria categories: joins in activity, initiates new activity, ignores stooge and watches stooge.
• 6 anger categories: agrees, disagrees, neutral, initiates agreement/disagreement, watches, ignores.
• Self-report of the participants emotional state on a 5 point scale. 0 meaning they did not feel that emotion and 5 meaning they extremely felt that emotion. Eg. "On a scale of 0-5, how irritated are you right now?"
• Two questions on the participant's physiological state from a scale of 0-4 eg. "Did you feel any tremors?".

Findings:

• Physiological response: Participants in the EPI condition experienced more physiological arousal than those in the placebo. The difference was significant.
• Euphoria self-report: Participants in the EPI MIS and EPI IGN rated themselves more euphoric than EPI INF.
• Euphoria observations: Same results as the self-report. EPI MIS had the most euphoric activity (22.56) and EPI INF had the lowest (12.72).
• Anger observations: EPI IGN had the highest anger score of 2.28. EPI INF had the lowest at -0.18.

Conclusion:

For someone to feel a certain emotion, a cognitive (situational) factor is needed along with the physical arousal. The two factor theory was proven to be accurate.

Strengths:

• Laboratory experiment - Many controls (eg. Stooge's standardized script and activities, what the experimenter said during the injection, what was injected, how behaviours were categorized) - Easy to replicate to test for reliability.
• Laboratory experiment - Many controls - Confidence that the stimuli provided to participants directly affected their emotion.

Weaknesses:

• All male students - cannot be generalized, females have different body chemistry therefore may feel emotions differently. Older people may also feel emotions differently, as with people from different cultures.
• Participants in placebo condition had a higher euphoric and anger condition than that of EPI INF, which is not in line with the theory. This may be because the injection itself can cause physiological arousal.
• Getting an injection is a dramatic event which could be a cognitive explanation for whatever physiological arousal participants felt and could cause physiological arousal. This makes the stooge less of an influence on their emotion.
• Epinephrine does not affect everyone in the same way.
• Low mundane realism - It is abnormal to be randomly given an injection then asked to sit in a room with a stranger who starts acting up. Therefore this experiment may be invalid since participants may feel differently in real life. 
• Mood was not tested before the injection - participants may have already been happy or angry before being put in the experiment.

Ethics:

• Deception: Participants were told they were receiving suproxin to test for vision and they were told the stooge was another participant, which are all untrue. 
• Harm: Participants were given an injection which could cause physical pain. They were also put in situations to deliberately make them happy or angry, therefore they did not leave the experiment in the same psychological state as they entered.

Psychology: Developmental psychology: Factors influencing young children's use of motives and outcomes as moral criteria

Psychology: Developmental psychology: Factors influencing young children's use of motives and outcomes as moral criteria

Author: Nelson (1980)

Key term: Children's morals

Background/context:

• Piaget proposed that children go through 3 stages of moral development:
  -Pre-moral stage: No morals, just instinct, from birth to 4-6 years
  -Heteronomous morality: Moral is the rule, 6 - 10 years
  -Autonomous morality: Set of individual morals, 10+
• Morality: Ability to distinguish right from wrong.
• Piaget proposed that children under 10 based their judgement on the outcome (negative/positive) instead of intention (motives).
• However, Nelson suggests that in Piaget's study the children did not fully understand the story, and if the child understands the story (eg. by including pictures), then they can understand motive as well as outcome.

Aim/hypothesis: To prove that children as young as 3 years do take into account both motive and outcome when making moral judgements.

Method: Field experiment in school, involving an interview.

Study 1

Variables:

Independent variables:

1. Age: 3-4 years or 6-8 years
2. Motive (good or bad) and outcome (good or bad)
   Stories:
   -Boy playing with ball. Wants friend to join in (good motive). Boy throws ball to friend to start game of catch. Friend catches ball and game of catch begins (good outcome).
   -Boy playing with ball. Wants friend to join in (good motive). Boy throws ball to friend to start game of catch. Ball hits friend on head and makes him cry (bad outcome).
   -Boy playing with ball. Mad at friend, throws ball to hit him on the head (bad motive). Friend catches ball and game of catch begins (good outcome).
   -Boy playing with ball. Mad at friend, throws ball to hit him on the head (bad motive). Ball hits friend on head and makes him cry (bad outcome).
3. Mode of presentation:
   Verbal only: Stories described to each child verbally (as done by piaget).
   Motive implicit: Set of cartoon-like pictures with the positive and negative motives only implied by facial expressions.
   Motive explicit: Set of cartoon-like pictures with positive and negative motives shown explicitly by cartoon-like thought bubbles above the characters head showing his motive.

Motive explicit story board. Bad motive bad outcome story. 

Dependent variable: Judgement of whether the boy in the story was a 'good boy' or a 'bad boy' by the child. This was done by a scale of 7 faces, from a sad 'very bad' face to a happy 'very good' face. Both sets of good/bad smileys were 7.5cm (very good/bad), 6.5cm (good/bad) and 5.5cm (little bit bad/ little bit good). There was a 'neutral' 4.5cm face in the middle for 'just okay'.

Scale of smiley faces.

Design: Independent groups for age and mode of presentation. Motive and outcome were repeated measures because kids were shown all four stories.

Setting: Schools in and around Illinois, Chicago, USA.

Participants and sampling technique: Study 1: 60 preschool kids aged 3-4 (average age 3.4 years) and 30 kids aged 6-8 (average age 7.4 years). Half male half female. Parents gave consent for them to be in the experiment.

Apparatus: 4 stories of cartoon-like pictures. Pictures were 25 x 23 cm black and white line drawings.

• Motive implicit: Only facial expressions
• Motive explicit: Thought bubble showing character's intentions (motives).
• Verbal only: Just verbal description of story.

Controls:

• Each child had 4 stories.
• Same experimenter tested every child.
• Cartoons were all the same, in a standard format.
• Children told they would have to repeat the story later so they pay close attention to the story.

Procedure:

1. Children in each age group randomly assigned mode of presentation; verbal only, motive implicit and motive explicit. Split evenly - 20 kids in each verbal, motive implicit and motive explicit preschool group, and 10 kids in each for the older group. 
2. Children were each interviewed individually by experimenter and familiarized with the rating scale (7 smiley faces) by being given 2 practice stories. 
3. Children were told to listen to each story then point to which face that showed how good or bad the boy was. 
4. After the child made their judgement, pictures were removed in the picture condition groups and child was asked to repeat the story the experimenter told. If the motive or outcome was missing, the experimenter would ask specific questions such as "Why did the boy throw the ball?". 

Data: 

• Quantitative data: A number was allocated to each smiley face so the numbers in each IV condition could be calculated. 
• Qualitative data: Interviewer asked child to repeat the story. A second rater was used to check interviewer understanding - great inter-rater reliability: agreement of 97%. 

Significant results:

3-4 years old:

• Good motive: Good outcome: 6.55. Bad outcome: 4.17.
• Bad motive: Good outcome: 2.27. Bad outcome: 1.60.

6-8 years old:

• Good motive: Good outcome: 6.20. Bad outcome: 4.47.
• Bad motive: Good outcome: 3.46. Bad outcome: 1.56.

Outcome: Overall good: 4.7. Overall bad: 2.92.

Age: 40% of 3-4 year olds would rate the boy as bad once any mention of 'bad' was heard, ignoring any good information. 28% ignored outcome and rated solely on motive.

Findings:

• Outcomes greatly influenced a child's judgement as shown in overall outcome ratings - outcomes were very different from each other. 
• Bad motives influence judgement much more than good motive or outcome - children learn bad before good. 
• Only outcome judgement varied with mode of presentation, when it was expected that both motive and outcome would vary.
• When motive was explicit, outcomes would affect the child's judgement more than verbal only or explicit. 
• Younger children made more errors in recalling the story.
• Less errors in motive recall when pictures were shown (motive implicit and explicit). 
• Children want a story that is congruent (where both motive and aspects match each other - eg. all good or all bad). 
• When a story is incongruent, kids aged 3-4 have a harder time recalling the story, and tend to change the story so it is congruent.

Conclusion:

• Young children place more importance on the valence (positive/negative or good/bad) than the motive or outcome. 
• Children are more influenced by bad than good. This may show that children learn the concept of bad before good, as shown in the 3-4 age group.
• However, motive might affect the child's judgement because it is the first information they receive, as results show that children immediately rate a story as bad when motive was bad. Therefore there is a design flaw, so another study was done. 

Study 2

Participants and sampling: 27 pre-school kids aged 3-4 (mean age 3.8). Each child was randomly assigned a mode of presentation.

Procedure; Everything repeated the same way as study 1 except for order of presentation: in the stories outcome was presented before motive.

Storyboard used in Study 2. Bad motive and bad outcome story. 

Findings:

• Same as study 1, anything negative, motive or outcome, affected judgement more than anything positive.
• Outcome did not have a bigger affect in this study, although being presented first, which shows that motive is still taken into account and important. 

Conclusion:

• Children as young as 3-4 years old can understand the concept of good and bad and if they understand the story, their moral judgment will be based on both outcome and motive. 
• Mode of presentation has some effect on a child's judgement: in verbal only, children would rate the boy as bad when the mention of bad was heard, however, in picture presentations, the child understands the story more and bases judgement on both motive and outcome. 
• Younger children are better at recalling the story accurately if the story is congruent (all good or all bad eg. bad motive bad outcome). 

Strengths

• Quantitative data: Objective and easier to analyse - The data was numerical so it was easy to compare different scores in different age groups and story conditions and analyse the data collected.
  This makes it easier to draw conclusions because data can be averaged and the data is concrete and evidently supports/ doesn't support aim. 
• Field experiment: Ecological validity - Children were in a natural setting therefore may be more likely to act naturally, therefore the experiment is valid.

Weaknesses

• Quantitative data: Lacks valuable information - The child simply pointed at a face, but we don't know why they chose that face. We do not know the child's reasoning and whether they chose the face based on their moral judgement or because of another reason.
• Social desirability or demand characteristics: Children might have chosen the face based on the two pilot stories they heard instead of what they believed was the answer, because the experimenter showed them what they were supposed to answer in the pilot stories.
  This would affect the validity of the data.
• In study 1, children were told all four stories verbally. The children could have gotten bored or muddled the stories together, which would affect the judgements they made, especially for the last 2 stories. This could affect the validity of the data.

Ethics

• Use of children - cannot give informed consent.

Psychology: Developmental Psychology: Case study 3: Infant facial preference

Psychology: Developmental Psychology: Case study 3: Infant facial preference

Authors: Langlois et al. (1991)

Background/Context: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Do we judge books (and people) by their cover?
Langlois believes that there is a universal standard of beauty that people judged facial attractiveness with, and both adults and infants judge attractive adults and infants more favorably, treating them better than those who are unattractive. 

Young infants have not yet been influenced by media or culture, so researching on infants would prove whether there is a universal standard of attractiveness.

Aim/hypothesis: 

• Study 1:
  -Replicate previous results (preference for attractive) with adult female faces.
  -See if adult male faces produce the same results (preference for attractive).
  -Investigate where order of presentation of male/female affects preferences.
• Study 2: See if same results are achieved with non-white faces.
• Study 3: See if same results are achieved with faces of babies.

Method: Laboratory experiment

Variables:

• Independent variables:Study 1-Attractive and unattractive white female faces-Attractive and unattractive white male faces-Infants who saw either of two conditions: All men then all women (or all women then all men) and alternating men and women.
  
  Study 2: Attractive and unattractive black female faces.
  
  Study 3: Attractive and unattractive male and female infant faces.

• Dependent variable: Fixation time (in seconds) - length of time an infant looks at a face. Each face was presented twice (once on the left, and once on the right of the screen) so the mean time for each face was calculated and agreement between the two observers could be checked.
• Attractiveness of faces judged by people on the 5-point Linkert scales.

Psychology: Developmental psychology: Analysis of a phobia of a 5 year old boy

Psychology: Developmental psychology: Analysis of a phobia of a 5 year old boy

Author: Freud (1909)

Key term: Little Hans

Approach: Development psychology; psychodynamic perspective

Method: Case study and longitudinal method

Freud's psychodynamic approach:

• Our behaviours and feelings when we grow up (including psychological problems) are caused by childhood experiences.
• All behaviour is determined.

Personalities are made up of 3 parts: The ID (instinctive drive), ego and superego

• ID: Biological aspects of the personality. Consists of two forces:
        Eros: Life force - Instinct that drives us to do biological things - sex drive, eating, etc. Mainly revolves around libido (sex drive).
        Thanatos: Death force- Instinct of self-destruction.
  ID is chaotic and totally unreasonable (we cannot randomly have sex with people when we feel like it).
• Ego: Mediates between unrealistic ID and external real world. Decision making component of personality. Works out realistic ways of satisfying ID.
  "Part of the ID which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world" - Freud.
  Similar to ID, seeks pleasure and avoids pain but using a realistic strategy.
• Superego: Values and morals of society by influence of parents or role models. Strive for perfection. Develops at around the age of 3-5 during phallic stage of psychosexual development. Two systems:
      Conscious: Punishes the ego through feelings of guilt.
      Ideal self: Imaginary picture of how you ought to be; career aspirations, how to treat other people and how to behave as a member of society.

•  The ego and superego are largely determined by parental values and how you were brought up.

Freud's psychosexual development theory:

• Freud believed life was built around tension and pressure, which was due to the libido.
• What develops is the way sexual energy accumulates and builds up and is discharged as we mature biologically. 
• Each psychosexual stage has a particular conflict that must be resolved before continuing to the next stage. Some people may not be able to leave one stage and continue on to the next. This can be because the needs of the stage have not been met, causing frustration, or the pleasure is so good they don't want to leave, called overindulgence. 

1. Oral - The mouth - sucking, swallowing, etc. Ego develops.
2. Anal - The anus - withholding or excreting feces. 
3. Phallic - The penis or clitoris - masturbation. Superego develops.
4. Latent - Little or no sexual motivation.
5. Genital - The penis or vagina - Sexual intercourse.

Freud's Oedipus complex

• Oedipus - Greek myth where Oedipus, a young man, kills his father and marries his mother.
• The Oedipus complex is when a 3 - 5 year old boy develops sexual feelings for his mother, and therefore wants to get rid of his father so he can have his mother all to himself.
• This is usually resolved by the boy imitating his father's masculine type behaviours, called identification.
• Happens during phallic stage.
• Fred states that every boy goes through this complex to a certain extent.

Little Han's phobia case study

• 5 year old Jewish boy from Vienna, Austria.
• Phobia of horses
• Primary aim was to treat the phobia.
• Freud did not work directly with Hans. his father gave Freud all the details of Hans behavior when he suspected Hans was suffering from the Oedipus complex.

• At 3, Hans was very obsessed with his 'widdler' (penis), and also those of other people. He once asked his mother "Mommy, do you also have a widdler?". He played with it regularly until his mother threatened to call the doctor to get it cut off, which made him get castration anxiety. 
• At the same time, Hans saw a horse collapse and die in the street, and was very upset.

• At 4, Hans developed a fear of horses, specifically a fear that a white horse would bite him. 
• At the same time a conflict developed between him and his father. Hans had developed a habit of getting in to his parents bed in the morning to cuddle his mother. However, his father began to object and banned him from continuing.  
• Hans phobia worsened to the point that he would not leave the family house and he also suffered attacks of generalised anxiety.
• The anxiety Hans had was actually castration anxiety triggered by his mothers threat to cut off his "widdler" and fear of his father caused by his banishment from the parental bed. 

• Hans reported having the following dream; "In the night there was a big giraffe in the room and a crumpled one: and the big one called out because I took the crumpled one away from it. Then it stopped calling out: and I sat on top of the crumpled one."
• The giraffes in Hans dream represent his parents. The large giraffe is his father, and him crying out represented him objecting Hans. It's erect neck could have also been a penis symbol. The crumpled giraffe was his mother, and the crumpling represented her genitals. 

• When Hans was 5 his phobia of horses lessened, initially becoming limited to only white horses with black nose bands, then disappearing altogether.

• The horses represented Hans father, especially white horses with black nose bands, because they looked like his moustached father. Horses also have large penises, which make a good father symbol.s

• The end of the phobia was marked by two fantasies:
• Hans fantasised that he had several children. When his father asked who their mother was Hans replied "Why Mummy, and you're the granddaddy"
• This children fantasy represents a friendly resolution of the Oedipus complex, where he replaces his father but still keeps him in the family with the role as grandfather.
• The next day, Hans fantasised that a plumber had come and removed his bottom and penis, replacing them with new and larger ones. 
• The plumber fantasy represents identification with the father. Hans can see himself growing a large penis like his fathers and becoming like him.

Conclusion

Hans had a phobia of horses because he was suffering from castration anxiety and was going through the Oedipus complex. Hans dreams and fantasies helped express this conflict and eventually he resolved his phobia and Oedipus complex by identification by fantasising of himself taking on his fathers role and placing his father in the role of grandfather.

Strengths

• Case study - Lots of data can be collected because it is the study of one boy, so it is more valid.
• Natural observation - Hans was in his own house and not in any artificial setting, so there is a high level of ecological validity and mundane realism.

Weaknesses

• Unscientific - Freud's theory is considered unscientific because there is no evidence to back his theory.
• Generalization - Since it is the study of only one boy, we cannot generalize the oedipus theory to every boy.
• Bias - Freud published his theory before doing this case study, therefore he could have been bias. Hans father was a fan of Freud and believed in his theory, therefore he could've only told details that correlated to the study.
• Invalid - There could be many other reasons Hans had a phobia of horses. For example, when he was 3 he saw a horse fall in the street and die.

Psychology: Development psychology: Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models

Psychology: Development psychology: Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models

Authors: Bandura et al. (1961)

Key term: Aggression

Background/context: Behaviorists believe that all behavior is learned, through classical conditioning (Pavlov - learned through association) and operant conditioning (Skinner - learned through reward and punishment). Watson (1923) classically conditioned 'Little Albert' to be scared of a white rat.

Behaviorists believed that we could only learn things that happened to us personally. But Bandura outlined observational learning - if behavior of a model (parent, teacher, etc) is observed then it will be copied (imitation learning). To test this theory Bandura designed an experiment trying to teach children aggression through observation.

Aim/Hypothesis: Children would reproduce aggressive behavior even if the model was no longer present

1. If a behavior is observed it will be imitated.
2. If a behavior is not observed it cannot be imitated.
3. Boys will copy a male model more than a female model/ Girls will copy a female model more than a male model.
4. Boys are more predisposed to show aggression than girls.

Method: Laboratory experiment - controlled observation 

Variables:

• Independent variables:

1. Three conditions:
   -Aggressive model group - 6 boys and 6 girls with the male model; 6 boys and 6 girls with the female model.
   -Non-aggressive model group - 6 boys and 6 girls with the male model; 6 boys and 6 girls with the female model.
   -Control group - 12 boys and 12 girls who saw no model at all.
2. Sex of model
3. Sex of child

• Dependent variable: Number of behaviors out of 240 maximum in each response category.

Independent variable conditions

Design: Matched pairs - Children were matched for pre-existing aggression levels of aggression, and independent groups as shown in 3 conditions above.

Participants and sampling technique: 

• 72 children (36 boys and 36 girls) aged between 37(just over 3 years) to 69 months (5 years 9 months) from Stanford University nursery school.
• Mean age was 52 months (4 years 4 months)
• Probably opportunity sample
• Quota sampling to achieve 12 participants in each sub-category

Apparatus: 

• Room 1: Potato prints, picture stickers, table and chair, Tinker toy set, mallet and inflatable 5-foot bobo doll (adult-size)
• Room 2: Fire engine, locomotive (train), doll, spinning top
• Room 3: One-way mirror for observations, 3-foot bobo doll, mallet and peg board, two dart guns, tetherball with a face, tea set, 3 bears, cars, farm animals, crayons and coloring paper.

Bobo doll

Controls:

• Children were matched for pre-existing aggression levels by the experimenter and nursery teacher independently rating 51 children on a scale of 0 - 5 (5 being very aggressive). There was very good agreement between the teacher and experimenter (0.89).
   -eg. A child rated as 5 (very aggressive) was matched with another child rated 5 (with one going to the 'aggressive' condition and one going to the 'non-aggressive' condition).
• The toys in room 1, 2 and 3 were always the same and always in the same position when a child entered the room. 
• The actions of the aggressive model was always the same, in the same order and for the same length of time. 
• Observers watching through the two way mirror were unaware of which condition the child was in while observing to prevent bias.
• The 20 minute session was divided into 5 second intervals, giving 240 response 'units'. 
• Observers had a inter-rater reliability rate in the 0.9 range.

Procedure:

1. Each child was shown to room 1. He/She played with the potato prints and stickers to settle in. 
2. The child was taken to the other side of the room where they were shown to either of the two conditions for 10 minutes: aggressive or non aggressive.
    -Aggressive condition: Model would sit on, throw the bobo doll (Verbal aggressive: "throw him in the air") punch in the nose ("sock it on the nose"), hit the bobo doll with the mallet ("hit him down") and kick the bobo doll around the room ("kick him").
    -Non-aggressive condition: Adults assembled toy and did not interact with the bobo doll.
    -Control condition: No adult in the room.
3. Child was then taken to room 2 for Mild aggression arousal (to annoy children and increase aggressive behavior). He/She played with the toys for around 2 minutes before the toys got taken away from the child and he/she was told they were not allowed to play with anymore as they were "the very best toys" and had been reserved for other children.
4. Testing for delayed imitation. Room 3 (test room) contained non-aggressive and aggressive toys (eg. dart guns - aggressive gun play). The experimenter was in the room occupied with paperwork, while two observers watched through a two way mirror. Children were observed playing for the next 20 minutes.

Results:

• Results were in 6 response categories for both female and male children:
  - Imitative physical aggression
  - Imitative verbal aggression
  - Mallet aggression
  - Punches bobo doll
  - Non-imitative aggression
  - Aggressive gun play
• Imitative aggression: Physical and verbal aggression to that modeled in the procedure
• Non-imitative aggression: New aggressive acts not demonstrated by model
• Quantitative data

Results table

• Significant results:
  Male imitative physical aggression with male model: 25.8
  Female imitative verbal aggression with female model: 13.7
  Male mallet aggression with male model: 28.8
  Male Non-imitative aggression with male model: 36.7

Findings:

• Significantly more instances of aggression in the aggressive group than the non aggressive group.
• Boys followed the male model more when it came to physical aggression.
• Girls followed the female model more in verbal aggression.
   This may be because since a young age we are taught that men are meant to be more masculine.
• Children in all groups, boys and girls, showed aggressive gun-play even though this was not observed in Room 1 (exposure) - non-imitative aggression.

Conclusion: Behavior that is observed is likely to be imitated - Bandura's 'observational learning' theory is supported. 

Strengths:

• Laboratory experiment - High levels of control - Reliable, can be redone, EVs rare
   -Same toys in the same position for each child
   -Models did the same procedure for each condition for each child
   -All variables besides conditions in the IV controlled
   -Observers did not know which condition they were recording results for, so no bias.
•  -Standardized procedure, can be repeated again to test for reliability of results
• Valid - IV directly affects DV - Observation of models determining child's level of aggression
• Quantitative data - Objective, can be analysed
   -Number of responses marked for each response category to show aggression in children clearly shows that the children who experienced the aggressive condition show more aggression.

Weaknesses:

• Laboratory experiment - Lacks mundane realism - Not normal daily life activity
   -Children do not usually sit there and watch adults play without joining in
   -Children and model are strangers
   -Child and model do not interact
• Quantitative data - We don't know why the children chose to be aggressive
• Snapshot study - Results recorded immediately after experiment, which was also a single experiment - can one experience cause long term effects?

Ethics: 

• Use of children in experiments is unethical because they cannot give consent
• This experiment could have left long term psychological damage on the children
• Children left the experiment psychologically different then before the experiment

Psychology: Social psychology: Case Study 4: Experiments in intergroup discrimination

Psychology: Social psychology: Case Study 4: Experiments in intergroup discrimination

Author: Tajfel (1970)

Key term: Intergroup discrimination

Background: Tajfel believes that we as people categorize everything - including other people. As children, we decide who we like and don't like, putting things into an order that is easier and simpler to understand and deal with. We categorize people into 'us' and 'them', 'we' and 'they' - an 'in-group' and 'out-group'. The implication of this prejudice is we develop a 'generic norm of behavior' - a way of behaving in society and toward other people, favoring people in our in-group (anything can create an in-group; race, age, gender, likes, dislikes, etc) and discriminating against those in the out-group.

Prejudice - Forming an opinion before knowing the facts 

Aim/hypothesis: 

• Study 1: Test the theory that in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination will be shown even in the categorization into minimal groups (over and under estimating number of dots)- will just merely being in different groups cause discrimination?
• Study 2: Validate study 1 using a different criteria for minimal groups (artistic preference)

Method: Laboratory experiment

Variables:

• Independent variables:
  Study 1: Two conditions -
   Groups 'over-estimators of dots' and 'under-estimators of dots'  For half the boys, they were told some boys were more accurate at estimating than others.
  Study 2: Two conditions - groups 'preference for Klee' and 'preference for Kandinsky' (artists)
  However... The boys only thought they were sorted into these two groups - but each boy is in both in-group and out-group.
• Dependent variables: Choice of points made by the boys on each matrix.

Design: Repeated measures - Each boy is in both the in-group and out-group, although they were deceived into thinking that they were in different groups depending on their estimation of dots and preference of Klee and Kandinsky.

Participants/ Sampling technique:

• Study 1: 64 boys aged 14-15 from a comprehensive school in Bristol, UK. All the boys were in the same house and knew each other.
• Study 2: 3 new groups, 16 boys in each group from the same school as Study 1 - 68 boys in total, but only 48 boys did the experiment in the end.
• Probably opportunity sampling because boys were from the same school 

Experimenters: Unknown - probably Tajfel himself.

Apparatus:

• Study 1: Booklet with 18 matrices; 6 different matrices for 3 variables: ingroup choice (ingroup-ingroup), outgroup choice (outgroup-outgroup) and intergroup choice (ingroup-outgroup). In-group was always on the top row.

Example of a matrix used in study 1. 

• Study 2: 12 slides - 6 pictures by the artist Klee, 6 pictures by the artist Kandinsky. Booklet with 4 different matrices for the same 3 variables. One major difference was these matrices were employed to allow experimenters to investigate these three variables;
   Maximum joint profit (giving the largest reward to both groups)
   Largest possible reward to ingroup (largest reward to boy of their group regardless of the reward to outgroup)
   Maximum difference (largest difference in points in favour to the ingroup)
  The outgroup was also the top row in some of the matrices.

Eg. of matrix in booklet for study 2

Example of the variables that experimenters could investigate in the matrices in study 2

No box allows equal marks to be given - the marker has to favour one or the other boy.
Matrices are scored on a scale of 1-14.
Matrices consist of 13 boxes.

Each point was worth 1/10 of a 

Controls:

• All the boys received the same instructions.
• All boys completed the booklet separately in individual cubicles - no conformity or copying.
• Boys did not know who they were allocating rewards to, each boy was given a code name - prevent bias
• Boys could not allocate points to themselves - prevent bias
• In Study 2 signatures of Klee and Kandinsky were removed from the paintings shown to the boys so they would not know they were randomly allocated.
• Study 2 allows investigation of max. diff., max joint profit and max. profit - elimination of EVs
• Some matrices in Study 2 had the outgroup as the top row - elimination of EVs

Procedure:

• Study 1 - Estimating dots:

1. The 64 boys arrived in the laboratory in groups of 8.
2. They were told the experiment was on 'visual judgement' and shown 40 slides of varying numbers of dots and told to estimate the number of dots.
3. They were then divided into groups of  'over-estimators' and 'under-estimators' but the groups were actually randomly allocated
4. Half of the boys (4 groups of 8) were told some people in the group were 'better as estimating' than others.
5. Each boy was given a booklet of the matrices to complete alone. The boys would choose a column in the matrix with two different points they wished to allocate to two boys.
6. Boys were told each point was worth 1/10 of a penny 

• Study 2 - Aesthetic preference:

1. 68 boys arrived in the laboratory in groups of 16. 
2. They were told the experiment was about 'aesthetic preference for two foreign painters' and shown 12 slides of paintings - 6 by Klee, 6 by Kandinky. Autographs of the painters were removed.
3. The boys completed a booklet of the 12 matrices for Study 2.

Data: Quantitative data - the points boys chose in each matrix were totalled; they were not asked why they allocated those points.

Results:

Study 1: 

• The results were scored on a scale of 1-14, 1 being minimum amount of points possible and 14 being the max. amount of points possible to a fellow ingroup member.
   For the ingroup-ingroup and outgroup-outgroup matrices, the average result was 7.5 out of 14.
• This shows that for same group matrices, the boys gave both boys in the matrix points that were as close as possible to being fair. 
• However, when it came to intergroup choices, the boys allocated more points to their ingroup; the average score was 9 out of 14. This difference is statistically significant.

Study 2: 

• Study 2 was to further investigate the findings in Study 1, the relative weightings given to three variables - max. diff., max. joint profit, and max. in-group profit. 
• The boys did not choose the max. joint profit rewards to both in-group and out-group or maximum in-group profit, despite them all knowing each other. 
• Instead, they chose maximum difference, meaning that although the in-group got less overall, the out-group got less than the in-group. 
• Maximumising the difference between the two groups, even if it meant less profit for the group, was more important than maximum profit.

Findings:

• Study 1: The boys showed in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination even on the basis of 'flimsy and unimportant criteria' (in this study, being an over/under-estimator of dots).
• Study 2: The boys discriminated the out-group, choosing to maximise the difference between the two groups instead of maximum profit on the basis of 'flimsy and unimportant criteria' (in this study, artistic preference)

Conclusion:

• When people are placed in a group based on a similar characteristic they share, no matter what kind of characteristic, they will favor those in their group and there will be discrimination towards people who don't have that characteristic.
• If school boys showed this trait even over a small difference, this proves that bigger differences (race, religion) can cause more inter-group conflict.
• Competition vastly increases inter-group conflict as shown in Sherif's Robbers cave experiment.

Strengths

• Laboratory experiment - High levels of control - Confidence that IV directly affects DV
  Autographs removed from paintings so boys did not know they were randomly assigned into groups
   -Each boy did his experiment individually so there was no copying and bias
   -Boys knew they were not allocating points to themselves
   -Names were not used in the booklets - boys only saw code names, not the real names of the boys they were allocating points to
• Laboratory experiment - High levels of control - Reliable, can be repeated and results should be the same 
• Quantitative data - Easy to analyze and objective - Results show clearly that boys favored the in-group from the points allocated

Weaknesses

• Laboratory experiment - Lacks ecological validity  - A laboratory where boys have to sit in a cubicle and mark matrices is not normal in real life 
• Quantitative data - We don't know why those boys allocated the points the way they did, there could be another reason besides grouping
• Reductionism - This study generalizes the world from a bunch of boys in a school in UK, maybe only teenagers in UK act like this.
  - All the boys knew each other - Strangers may behave differently in the same experiment 

Ethics

• Use of money is considered unethical
• Deception
   -Boys did not know the experiment was on inter-group discrimination - They were told the experiment was on "visual judgement" and "aesthetic preference", and the booklets were on "judgement". This is unethical because the boys were not told the real intention of the experiment.
   

Psychology: Social psychology: Case study: 3: Good Samaritan

Psychology: Social psychology: Case study: 3: Good Samaritan

Authors: Piliavin et al. (1969)

Key term:  Subway Samaritans

Background: In 1964, Kitty Genovese was brutally stabbed and murdered in a neighborhood with apparently approximately 38 witnesses, where no-one called the police or went out to help, causing psychologists to conduct research into this behaviour which later become known as the bystander effect - when individuals do not offer help in the presence of other bystanders; and diffusion of responsibility - the bigger the group, the less likely people are to help.

Aim/Hypothesis: There are four aims to this experiment:

1. Test diffusion of responsibility in a real-life setting.
2. The effect of the type and race of victim on the speed, frequency and race of helper. Would someone who was ill more likely to get help than someone's who was drunk (at their own fault)? Are people more likely to help someone of their own race?
3. Effects of modelling - Are people more likely to help when they see someone else helping?
4. Examine relationship between size of group, frequency and time of helping response.

Method: Field experiment and non-participant, naturalistic observation (conductor of experiment not in the experiment).

Variables: 

• Independent variables:

1. Type of victim (ill/drunk)
2. Race of victim (black/white)
3. Model conditions
   -Critical-early: Model in same carriage as victim, helps 70 seconds after victim falls.
   -Critical-late: Model in same carriage as victim, helps 150 seconds after victim falls.
   -Adjacent-early: Model in adjacent carriage as victim, helps 70 seconds after victim falls.
   -Adjacent-late: Model in adjacent carriage as victim, helps 150 seconds after victim falls. 

• Dependent variables:

1. Frequency of helping
2. Speed of helper
3. Race of helper
4. Gender of helper
5. Comments made by passengers

Design: Independent groups - people on the subway only experienced an ill black trial, ill white trial, drunk black trial or drunk white trial. 

Setting: 

• New York City 
• 7 1/2 minute train journey 
• IND (independent line) from 59th street station to 125th street station.

Experimenters: Students from Columbia University. 

4 teams of 4; 1 male victim, 1 male model, 2 female observers. In total; 

• 4 male victims (1 black and 3 white, aged 26-35)
• 4 male models (all white, aged 24-29) 
• 8 female observers. 

Participants/ Sampling technique: 

• 4450 men and women traveling between 11am and 3pm. 
• Unaware they were in an experiment. 
• 45% black and 55% white. 
• Sample was self-selecting because it consisted of participants who were on the train at that time.

Apparatus: 

• Subway train (old model which observers could sit in the same place each time) which only had 13 seats. 
• All victims dressed in Eisenhower jackets and old slacks (no tie). 
• Victim in ill condition: black cane
• Victim in drunk condition: smelled of alcohol, had a liquor bottle in a brown bag. 

Controls:

• Same 7 1/2 train journey for all trials
• Victims wore same clothes and fell over at the same time (after 70 seconds) in the same place and the same way.
• Started the journey in the same place (observer 1 in adjacent carriage near exit, observer 2 in adjacent carriage in far corner.

Procedure

1. Members of the team of four position themselves in the specific locations on the train.
2. Subway leaves the station, 70 seconds later, victim (black/white and ill/drunk) staggers forward, collapses and remains on the floor, staring at the ceiling of the carriage.
3. If no one helps, the model intervenes. One of the four model conditions used (above in independent variables).
4. Observer 1 records: Gender, race and location of passengers (seated or standing) in critical carriage, total number of passengers, total number who went to help.
   Observer 2 records: Gender, race and location of passengers in adjacent area, time taken for first passenger to help, time taken for someone to help the model.
   Both observers record comments by passengers sitting next to them. 
5. If no one helps, the model helps the victim to his feet. At the next station the team of four get off the train, cross over and repeat procedure on the train going in the opposite direction. 6-8 trials completed in a day.

Data:

• Quantitative data: Demographic characteristics (gender, race), frequency of helping, speed of helping, etc.
• Qualitative data: Comments made by passengers

Findings:`

• 43 people present in each carriage
• Total 103 trials
• 78% of victims received spontaneous help
• Ill victim: Spontaneous help on 62 out of 63 trials - model only helped 3 times. Median helping time was 5 seconds.
• Drunk victim: Spontaneous help on 19 out of 38 trials. Median helping time was 109 seconds.
• When spontaneous help was given, on 60% of the 81 trials two, three or more helpers joined. No difference between black or white, ill or white victim. If one person helped others join.
• 60% of first helpers in critical area were male; 90% of people helping were male 
• No significant difference in race of helpers - 64% of first helpers white.
• Same race helping:
  When victim was white, 68% of first helpers were white; when victim was black, only 50% of first helpers were white - Tendency for same race helping
  Ill condition - no difference in race of helpers.
  Drunken condition - mainly members of the same race
• People left the critical area only 20% of the time - 34 people; more people left when the victim was drunk than ill.
• Most comments happened during drunk trials - especially when no one helped after 70 seconds.
  - May be due to discomfort of not helping, needing to justify inaction eg. "It's for men to help", "I'm not strong enough".

No diffusion of responsibility - In this study, helping was faster when there were more people.

• Victim and witnesses were face to face; unlike laboratory experiments. 

Conclusion

• Individuals who appear to be ill receive more help than a drunk person.
• Men are more likely to help than women - however, this could be a weakness of generalization, because in 1969, gender roles were different; women were still not seen as completely equal to men.
• Same-race helping is more likely, especially when victim is drunk.
• No strong relationship between number of bystanders and speed of helping - expected diffusion of responsibility not observed.
• The longer the emergency continues without help, the less impact a model has, and people are more likely to leave the immediate area.

Study results

Model of response in emergency situations

• Observing any emergency situation causes arousal in a bystander.
• Arousal: Unpleasant feeling (eg. sympathy, fear) that a bystander feels a need to reduce. Arousal can be higher if witness can relate to victim (eg. same race), the bigger the emergency, and the longer the situation continues.
• Arousal can be reduced by helping, going to get help, leaving the scene or concluding the victim doesn't deserve help.

Cost-reward matrix

• Determines response - People weigh up the costs and benefits before making a decision to help.
• Costs of helping - eg. possible physical harm
• Benefits of helping - eg. social approval 
• Benefits of not helping - eg. getting to work on time

Strengths

• Ecological validity - Could happen in real life.
• Behaviour is valid - Passengers did not know they were in an experiment, so behaviour is natural, although this is unethical, because passengers are deceived and there is no informed consent.

Weaknesses

• IV may not be affecting the DV - Situational variables are difficult to control in a field experiment, and it could be an EV affecting the DV - Eg. Positioning of people in carriage could not be controlled, so some people may not have noticed the incident, which could affect the level of helping.
• Unethical - Participants did not know they were in a study - no informed consent and deception.