Psychological Studies: Exploring Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior
Pepperberg’s Study on Animal Categorization
Aim:
To investigate whether animals can understand the concept of difference and similarity through categorization.
Sample:
Alex, an African grey parrot, who was already familiar with over 80 objects.
Procedure:
Alex was shown objects that differed in shape, color, and material. He was then asked to identify the similarities and differences between the objects. An independent observer tested him while the primary trainer translated his responses. If Alex answered incorrectly, he received a timeout. If he answered correctly, he received the object.
Results:
Alex was able to correctly identify the similarities and differences between the objects with an accuracy of 76.6% for familiar objects and 85% for novel objects.
Strengths:
– Low demand characteristics (Alex did not know the people involved in the study). – Low researcher bias (the trainer had not trained Alex before the study). – High internal validity (the novel trials showed that Alex understood the concept of similarity and difference).
Weaknesses:
– Low external validity (the results may not generalize to other animals or situations). – Fatigue effect (Alex may have become tired during the study).
Conclusion:
The study suggests that animals can understand the concept of similarity and difference through categorization.
Bandura’s Study on Observational Learning
Aim:
To investigate whether children would learn aggression by observing a model and whether they would reproduce this behavior in the absence of the model. The study also examined whether the sex of the model was important.
Sample:
72 children aged 3-6 years (36 boys and 36 girls) from the Stanford University Nursery School.
Procedure:
1. The children were rated on four 5-point scales measuring physical, verbal, anxiety, and aggression towards animate objects. 2. The participants were annoyed by being told that the good toys were in the other room. 3. In the aggressive condition, the model assembled the tinker toys for 1 minute before attacking the Bobo doll. In the non-aggressive condition, the model assembled the tinker toy for 10 minutes. In the control condition, no model was shown.
Results:
– Children who observed aggressive behavior were more likely to imitate it. – Children who observed non-aggressive behavior were more likely to imitate it. – Children were more likely to copy a same-sex model.
Strengths:
– Laboratory setting (controlled environment). – Internal validity (few confounding variables). – Inter-rater reliability (multiple observers agreed on the children’s behavior). – Demand characteristics (one-way mirror).
Weaknesses:
– Ethical concerns (annoying the children). – Use of self-report (subjective data). – Small sample size.
Canli’s Study on Emotional Memory
Aim:
To demonstrate that emotionally evocative images are remembered better than those that have little emotional impact on individuals.
Sample:
10 right-handed female volunteers.
Procedure:
1. Participants chose from four buttons indicating emotional arousal (0-3) while viewing 96 scenes on an fMRI scanner. 2. Three weeks later, participants were shown the same 96 scenes plus 48 new scenes and asked if they remembered them.
Results:
The more emotionally intense the image, the more likely it was to be remembered. The amygdala was sensitive to the individual’s experienced emotional intensity of the visual stimuli.
Strengths:
– Laboratory setting (controlled environment). – Internal validity (few confounding variables). – Demand characteristics (participants were motivated to perform well). – Quantitative data (fMRI scans).
Weaknesses:
– No ecological validity (the study was conducted in a laboratory setting). – Participant variables (only females were chosen). – No generalization (the results may not generalize to other populations).
Dement and Kleitman’s Study on Dreaming
Aim:
To investigate whether dream recall differs between eye movement (REM) and quiescent (NREM) stages of sleep.
Sample:
7 adults (5 males and 2 females).
Procedure:
1. Participants went to sleep in a dark room with electrodes attached to their scalps (EEG). 2. Participants were woken up by a doorbell at various times during the night and asked to recall and describe their dreams. 3. Participants were not told about the EEG or whether their eyes moved during sleep.
Results:
Dreaming was more likely to occur at the end of the night as REM stages became longer.
Strengths:
– Laboratory setting (controlled environment). – Control of extraneous variables (EEG monitoring). – Demand characteristics (participants were motivated to perform well).
Weaknesses:
– EEG is an objective measure, but it may not capture all aspects of dreaming. – Small sample size. – Deception of participants (they were not told about the EEG or eye movement monitoring).
Schachter and Singer’s Study on Emotion
Aim:
To test the two-factor theory of emotion, which proposes that cognitive factors can lead individuals to describe their feelings with any of a number of emotional labels.
Sample:
185 male college students.
Procedure:
1. Participants were told that the aim of the study was to test the effects of vitamin supplements on vision. 2. A doctor injected participants with either epinephrine (adrenaline) or a placebo. 3. Participants in the epinephrine group were placed in three experimental conditions: informed (told to expect side effects), misinformed (told to expect some side effects), and ignorant (told to expect no side effects). 4. Participants in the euphoria or anger group were placed in the same experimental conditions.
Results:
Participants’ emotional experiences were influenced by both the physiological effects of epinephrine and the cognitive factors (the information they were given about the injection).
Strengths:
– Use of questionnaires (operationalized the dependent variable). – Quantitative data.
Weaknesses:
– Participant variables (university students). – Epinephrine does not affect everyone in the same way.
Andrade’s Study on Doodling
Aim:
To investigate whether doodling assists in information processing.
Sample:
40 participants aged 18-55 years.
Procedure:
1. Participants listened to a dull phone call. 2. Participants were randomly assigned to either a doodling group or a non-doodling group. 3. Participants were tested on their recall of the phone call and their ability to monitor their own thoughts.
Results:
Doodling helped participants to concentrate on the primary task.
Strengths:
– Control of extraneous variables (standardized procedure). – Laboratory setting (controlled environment).
Weaknesses:
– Risk of demand characteristics (participants may have guessed the purpose of the study). – Participants were not informed about the purpose of the study.
Baron-Cohen’s Study on Autism
Aim:
To investigate whether adults with Asperger’s or autism are impaired on the ‘reading the mind in the eyes’ task.
Sample:
Four groups of participants: Group 1 (adults with Asperger’s or high-functioning autism), Group 2 (adult comparison group), Group 3 (students), and Group 4 (IQ-matched).
Procedure:
Participants were shown 36 sets of eyes, each with four choices of emotion on the face. Participants were asked to identify the emotion that was being expressed.
Results:
Participants with Asperger’s or high-functioning autism had difficulty identifying the emotions in the eyes.
Strengths:
questionnaire(operationalize the dv), quan data WEAK:part. variable(univ students), adrenalin doesnt affect everyone same way.
ANDRADE(doodling)labw/ind measures.aim:doodling assissted info process. SAMP:40 membersof part.panel 18-55 yrs.20 in each groupPROCED:1)listened to dull phone call. IV:doodle or not doodle.DV:recall&monitoring task 2) testsed on names listed CONC:helps conc on primary. STRENGTH: extr. var, stand,lab. WEAK:risk of demand ch,not informed
Baron-Cohen(eyes)aim:if adults w/ Asberger or autismimpaired on ‘reading the mind in the eyes’ task.(lab/quasi exp)IV:type of part (Group1(AS/HFA 2:adult comp group 3:sudent 4:IQ matched)DV:score on eyes test.PROCED:1.36 set of eyes 18 M&F each w/ 4 choices of emotion on face.CONC:those w/ AS or HFA have deficit in cog processto identify emotion in other indiv.S:lab-conf var. control,int valid W:sample small,no eco valid