Unit 2 Core Studies Flashcards
1
Q
Milgram
Sample
A
40 males
Self selecting
20-50 years old
New Haven USA
2
Q
Piliavin
Sample
A
Approximately 4,500+ men and women
New York subway USA
Opportunity
3
Q
Bocchiaro
Sample
A
Originally 160 Subject attrition= 149 participants Self-selecting university at Amsterdam- VU Amsterdam
4
Q
Levine
Sample
A
From 23 countries, no specific number
Opportunity
5
Q
Bandura
Sample
A
72 children 36 boys 36 girls Opportunity- Stamford university nursery USA
6
Q
Kohlberg
Sample
A
75 boys
Longitudinal
12 years, 3 year intervals
Chicago
7
Q
Chaney
Sample
A
32 children
22 boys, 10 girls
Random
8
Q
Lee
Sample
A
120 Chinese children- Hangzhao
108 Canadian children- Fredericton
9
Q
Sperry
Sample
A
11 split-brain participants (corpus callosum cut- callosotomy)
Opportunity
10
Q
Blakemore and Cooper
Sample
A
2 kittens
From birth until 7.5 months
11
Q
Casey
Sample
A
Original: 562
Experiment one: 59
Experiment two: 27
12
Q
Maguire
Sample
A
16 tax drivers (driving for 1.5-42)years
Male
Right handed
32-62 years old
Control group:
Matched by age, gender etc- MRI scans- structure of the brain
13
Q
Moray
Sample
A
Experiment one: unknown
Experiment two: 12 students
Experiment three: 2 groups of 14 students
14
Q
Loftus and Palmer
Sample
A
Experiment one: 45 students
Experiment two: 150 students (3 groups of 50)
15
Q
Grant
Sample
A
39 (was 40, 1 discarded)
Opportunity
Students from Iowa State University, USA
16
Q
Simons and Chabris
Sample
A
192 under-graduate students (was 228, 36 discarded)
Harvard University, USA
Opportunity
17
Q
Freud
Sample
A
1 boy
Almost 3-5 years old
Self-selecting
18
Q
Gould
Sample
A
1.75 million US military soldiers
Opportunity
19
Q
Baron-Cohen
Sample
A
16 with ASD- 13 males/ 3 females
50 clinically normal (control group)- 25 males/ 25 females
10 with tourettes- 8 males/ 2 females
20
Q
Hancock
Sample
A
52 prisoners- murderers
14 psychopaths
38 non-psychopaths
21
Q
Milgram
Procedure
A
Learner- Mr Wallace- confederate (actor/victim)- answered Qs wrong purposely
Teacher- Milgram- verbal prods “please continue”
Experimenter- participant- administering shocks to Learner
Experimenter sample shock of 45v
22
Q
Piliavin
Procedure
A
3 white, 1 black actor, 4 conditions
New York subway- no stops for 7 1/2 mins
Collapsed after 70 seconds
Model (observer) helped if no bystander did after 150 seconds
38/103= drunk, 65/103= ill
23
Q
Bocchiaro
Procedure
Room 1
A
The preliminary stage of the experiment
- A stern, Dutch male experimenter, formally dressed
- given ‘sensory deprivation’ cover story on devastating effects on brain function of 6 participants, aim was to ‘replicate this study’ at VU University
- Asked to write a statement, a complaint, both, or neither
24
Q
Bocchiaro
Procedure
Room 2
A
The task
- computer room
- 7 mins to write statement/complaint/both/neither
- advised to mention: exciting, great, superb incredible
- not permitted to say the negative effects of sensory deprivation
25
Bocchiaro
Procedure
Back to room 1
The follow up
- 2 personality tests: HEXACO-PI-R and Social Value Orientation
- debrief: been deceived, had to keep it quiet from friends and colleagues
26
Levine
| Procedure
H
27
Bandura
Procedure
Stage 1
10 minutes
- exposed to aggressive model “kick him” “pow”
- non-aggressive model ignored the bobo doll, played with other tinker toys more
- control group- “no prior exposure to the adult models” (Bandura)
28
Bandura
Procedure
Stage 2
2 minutes
Aggression Arousal
- children were taken to another room with attractive toys
- allowed to play with the toys for 2 mins
- told they could not play with them anymore as they were the best toys reserved for better children
29
Bandura
Procedure
Stage 3
20 minutes
- variety of non-aggressive toys (eg bears) and aggressive toys (mallet)
- one observer in the room
- behaviours were also observed through a one-way mirror
30
Kohlberg
| Procedure
- hypothetical dilemmas were given eg:
> steal the drug to save his wife or not steal it and let her die
> would they steal the life-saving drug for a stranger or not
> is breaking the law okay or not, even in a life and death situation
- responses from the boys were analysed
31
Chaney
| Procedure
- self report- closed questions about childrens’ attitudes towards their original inhaler
- children tried the funhaler to see if they preferred this operant conditioning based inhaler
32
Lee
| Procedure
- randomly allocated social/physical story condition
- explained rating chart to children- numbers/symbols/both
- each child listened to either all 4 social/ physical stories
- children rated naughty/good behaviour
33
Sperry
| Procedure- visual tasks
- objects present in right visual field, left hemisphere, described (language)
- objects present in left visual field, right hemisphere, draw (art/creative)
- apple LVF+key RVF presented in each visual field, drew what he saw (key) with left hand (out of sight)
- nude pin-up in LVF, became embarrassed but could not explain why
34
Sperry
| Procedure- tactile tasks
- objects felt by right hand only (and unseen), left hemisphere, could describe it
- objects felt by left hand only (and unseen), right hemisphere, could not describe it
35
Blakemore and Cooper
| Procedure
- dark room
- 2 week old kittens in two different cylinders- vertical/horizontal stripes 5 hours a day, then back in dark room
- had cones on, could not see anything but the stripes
36
Casey
Procedure
Experiment 1- cool task
- neutral expressions= cool stimuli
- in some trials, (neutral) male= ‘go’, and others (neutral) female= ‘go’ + vice versa
- ‘go’= 120 trials (male/female neutral), ‘no-go’= 40 trials (male/female neutral)
37
Casey
Procedure
Experiment 1- hot task
- emotional expressions= hot
- in some trials fearful= ‘go’, in others, happy= ‘go’ + vice versa
- ‘go’= 120 trials (happy/fearful), ‘no-go’= 40 trials (happy/fesarful)
38
Casey
procedure
Experiment 2
(similar to exp1)
‘Hot Task’
- high delayers: 35happyGO / NO-GO13fearful
- high delayers: 35fearfulGO / NO-GO13happy
- low delayers: 35happyGO / NO-GO13fearful
- low delayers: 35fearfulGO / NO-GO13happy
- fMRI scan when doing Go/No-Go task to show the brain activity
39
Casey
procedure
Differences between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2
Timing- 1 sec delay (exp1), 2-14.5 sec delay (exp2)
No.trials- 160 (exp1), 48 (exp2)
Equipment- fMRI scan exp2
40
Maguire
| Procedure
- taxi drivers were scanned with MRI scanner- photograph of the brain
- wanted to see the structure of their brain, not which parts are active
41
Moray
Procedure
Experiment 1
- Participants shadow one message while 2 messages were played in each ear
- ‘block’ other message, focus on selected message
42
Moray
Procedure
Experiment 2
- 2 passages in each ear
- both had instructions at beginning+within them
- monotone male voice, 130 words per min
43
Moray
Procedure
Experiment 2 10 passage instructions
- listen to right ear: 1-10
- 8+10= “you will receive instructions to change ears”
- instructions within passage- you may stop/ use of person’s name(affective cue)/ change to other ear/ no instructions
44
Moray
Procedure
Experiment 3
- shadow dichotic message
| - numbers: end, in both, in shadowed, in rejected, no numbers, varied placement of numbers in messages
45
Loftus and Palmer
Procedure
Experiment 1
- several film clips+ questionnaires (with 2 parts) to complete after the clips
- first- account of the accident (speed of vehicles at time of accident)
- lasted about 1hr30mins
46
Loftus and Palmer
Procedure
Experiment 2
- similar to exp1
- single clip (approx.1min)
- critical speed question
- 3 groups: HIT, SMASHED, no critical speed question
WEEK LATER
- all participants asked if they saw broken glass (there was none)
47
Grant
| Procedure
- randomly allocated to 1 of 4 conditions
- standardised instructions
- all tested individually
- background noise- lunchtime in uni cafe (only in noisy condition)
- test: recognition- multiple choice, recall- short answer Qs
48
Simons and Chabris
| Procedure
- 4 conditions- opaque/transparent, gorilla/umbrella woman
- count passes of white team/ black team
- bounce passes-easy (+aerial passes-hard)
49
Freud
| Procedure
- hans’ father recorded details of convos+ behaviours, made own interpretations+ sent them to Freud
- Freud replied with own interpretations and suggested behaviours to look out for
50
Gould/ Yerkes
| Procedure
- alpha test: American/Western life based questions
| - beta test: illiterate soldiers who had never had any type of education, or even seen a pencil before
51
Baron-Cohen
| Procedure
- Ps tested individually, own home/ researcher clinic/ university lab
- 4 tasks, random orders: The Eyes Task, Strange Stories, Gender Recognition Task, Basic Emotion Recognition Task (two control tasks)
52
Baron-Cohen
Procedure
The Eyes Task
- pictures of eyes 3 seconds
- 2 words- target (real) and a foil (wrong) word
- chose which word best described the ‘eye’- what the person the eye belonged to was feeling
53
Baron-Cohen
Procedure
Strange Stories
12 types: lie, white lie, joke, figure of speech, irony
- character says something that is literally not true, P explains why character said that
- validates ‘Eyes Task’
54
Baron-Cohen
Procedure
The Control Tasks
- Gender Recognition Task- same eye sets, Ps asked to identify person’s gender in each photograph (max. score 25)
- Basic Emotion Recognition Task- whole face used of 6 photographs with different emotions- happy/sad/angry/afraid/disgust/surprise
55
Hancock
Procedure
Stage 1
2 groups of murderers:
- psychopaths
- non-psychopaths
56
Hancock
Procedure
Stage 2
- Ps interviewed by blind researchers (blind to who was/was not a psychopath)
- Ps recalled all info and detail on their murders in interviews (25mins)- recorded+ transcribed afterwards
57
Hancock
Procedure
Stage 3
- Wmatrix ‘corpus analysis’- ability to tag parts of speech (verbs/nouns/adjectives)+ analyse semantic concepts (language/communication)
- Dictionary of Affect in Language (DAL)- assess emotional language+score of intensity+pleasantness
- speech from all 14 psychopaths was brought together+analysed and compared to 38 non-psychopaths
58
Milgram
Findings
Quantitative
- 100%=300v
| - 65%=450v
59
Milgram
Findings
Qualitative
- how Ps acted when giving shocks
| - acute stress- sweating, trembling, stuttering, groaning
60
Piliavin
Findings
Quantitative
- 62/65 ill trials helped
- 19/38 drunk trials helped
- 90% of 81 spontaneous helpers were men
61
Piliavin
Findings
Qualitative
- “it’s for men to help him”
| - “I wish I could help him- I’m not strong enough”
62
Levine
| Findings
- Brazil 1st= 93.33% helped overall
| - Malaysia 23rd= 40.33% helped overall
63
Bandura
Findings
Physical aggression- mean no. acts
- aggressive female= 5.5G/12.4B
- aggressive male= 7.2G/25.8B
- NON-aggressive female= 2.5G/0.2B
- NON-aggressive male= 0.0G/1.5B
- CONTROL GROUP= 1.2G/2.0B
64
Bandura
Findings
Verbal aggression- mean no. acts
- aggressive female= 13.7G/4.3B
- aggressive male= 2.0G/12.7B
- NON-aggressive female= 0.3G/1.1B
- NON-aggressive male= 0.0G/0.0B
- CONTROL GROUP= 0.7G/1.7B
65
Kohlberg
| Findings
- progress through the stages with increased age.
- Not all participants progressed to reach stage 6.
- progressed through the stages one at a time
- always in the same order.
66
Chaney
| Findings
- parents successfully medicating child- inhaler=10%, funhaler=73%
- children unwilling to use device- inhaler=61%, funhaler=7%
- childrens’ acceptance towards medication- inhaler= 58%, funhaler=19%
- completely happy parents towards medication- inhaler=10%, funhaler=61%
67
Lee
| Findings
Prosocial behaviour/Lie-Telling Situations:
- Canadian children rated lie telling negatively but as age increased their ratings became less negative.
- Chinese children’s ratings of lie telling in this situation changed from negative to positive as age increased.
• Antisocial Behaviour/Truth-Telling Situations:
- Children from both cultures rated truth telling in this situation very positively.
