PSYCHOLOGY 203 as-psychology-exam-revision-notes-a-cie-9990.

Cognitive Approach (Cognitive approach concentrates on how our mind works – looks at internal mental processes such as attention, thinking and memory. It sees human mind like a computer that receives information, processes it and gives response) Andrade Laney Baron-Cohen Why was carried out To test whether doodling aids concentration, measured by recall performance on memory test (no prior studies). No previous research has investigated the false beliefs for a positive event and explored consequences; to investigate positive false memory effects by suggesting to participants that they had loved asparagus as children. To investigate theory of mind in AS/HFA. To improve original study which had problems: only two options so 50% chance of guessing; some were too easy, could have been solved by eye direction; more females than males; Only opposite choices; No glossary. Aim To see whether doodling improves or hinders concentration. To investigate a positive false memory effects by suggesting to participants that they had loved asparagus as children; To explore consequences of false positive memory and its underlying mechanism. To replicate previous study; to test whether there was negative correlation between the scores on eyes test and autism spectrum; to test whether females scored better on eyes test than males. Behavior investigated -Whether doodling affects concentration -By hindering or improving it -Does doodling distract attention away from task -Or improve performance by aiding arousal. -Whether a memory for false positive event could be implanted -Whether telling a subject that they had loved asparagus as children led them to self-report a belief that this was true -Theory of mind -Whether autistic adults can read emotion in the eyes -Whether autistic adults score low in the Eyes test and high on the AQ test -Whether there is gender memory -Whether a false positive belief for asparagus led to consequences such as willingness to order it in restaurant. difference. Why cognitive approach Andre studies cognitive process of attention and how a secondary task such as doodling may hinder/improve performance on a primary task, if doodling will aid concentration assessed by memory task. Laney studies cognitive process of memory. Tries to implant positive false memory for loving asparagus as a child and the consequences of this in terms of whether someone would order it in restaurant and in exp.2 whether the picture of asparagus made it more appealing. Baron-Cohen is investigating cognitive process of Theory of mind in AS/HFA through eyes test, which measures first stage of theory of mind – attributing a relevant mental state. IV and DV IV: doodling and non-doodling DV: Mean correct recall, false alarms and memory scores. IV: love group and control group; believers and non- believers DV: ratings on critical items on both questionnaires in sessions 1&2, comparison. IV: autistic or not; males or females DV: Scores on eyes test and AQ. Sample Opportunity sampling; 40 subjects, only 5 males; UK. Volunteer sampling; received credit for participating; 128 undergraduates 77% females (exp.1); 103 undergraduates – received course credits (exp. 2) Group 1-volunteer sampling via magazine, 15 males AS/HFA; Group 2-opportunity sampling, 122 normal adults from Exeter or Cambridge public library users; Group 3-opportunity sampling, 103 undergraduates at Cambridge university (53 males 50 females); Group 4-random sampling, 14 randomly selected adults who were matched for IQ with group 1. How was data collected (Quantitative data) By asking them to listen to tape and write down the names of ppl attending party; in surprise memory test asked them to recall names of ppl and places mentioned in the tape. Questionnaires: FHI; Restaurant questionnaires and others; then same questionnaires again and others (like food cost questionnaire; memory or belief), exp.2 rated photographs. +Questionnaires. Some participants were asked to complete AQ test (self-report questionnaire), all of them had to look at pictures of people and complete eyes test – multiple-choice questionnaires. Findings -In number of correct names written down doodling scored more (7.8) than control (7.1) -On memory test on names doodling scored mean more (7.5) than Control (5.8). -In exp.1 subjects in love condition had higher mean rating (4.20) for loving asparagus in the post test compared to pre-test results (1.70) in FHI -In post test FHI participants in love condition had higher mean score (4.20) than control group (2.52) -In Eyes test AS/HFA group (1) scored 21.9 wile matched group (4) scored significantly higher 30.9 -In AQ test AS/HFA group (1) scored 34.4 while matched group scored significantly lower 18.9. Conclusions -People in doodling condition concentrated better on primary task than ppl who only listened to tape, nothing else -Doodling aids concentration -Doodling may help to stabilize -Exp. 1 concluded that it is possible to implant false positive memory -Exp. 1 concluded that implanting false positive beliefs leads to consequences (e.g. -AS/HFA group score significantly high on AQ test but significantly low on eyes test compared to general population -AS/HFA has difficulties in arousal -May reduce daydreaming more likely to order in restaurant) -Exp. 2 concluded that those who believed false feedback were more likely to rate asparagus more appetizing and less disgusting. reading peoples feelings through their eyes/attribution stage of theory of mind -Females are more likely to read others emotions since they scored better on eyes test. -Application to everyday life Useful for students when they are revising (doodling will help to concentrate) For children who are “fussy eaters”. If they don’t like healthy food (fruits/vegetables), doctors could use similar procedure to make them believe they love healthy food and change habits to eat better. Use eyes test as a way of teaching autistic individuals how to read emotions in the eyes. This could also be used as a diagnostic aid for autism. Cognitive Approach Evaluation Andrade Strengths: • Standardized procedure: same room; same tape; same task (to write down the names of participants attending party on the tape)… -> easily replicable -> reliable • Counterbalance: Some subjects had to recall peoples’ names first and then places; others had to recall places first and then peoples’ names. -> reduced order effects -> internal validity • Control over extraneous variables: quiet, visually dull room, monotonous voice of person on tape -> IV more likely to affect DV -> internal validity Weaknesses: • Low ecological validity: quiet, visually dull room, monotonous voice on tape -> not natural/unusual setting for participants -> may not act naturally -> low validity • Low population validity: from 40 people only 5 were males -> biased towards females -> not representative of target population/lacks generalizability -> low external validity • Low in mundane realism: had to listen to the tape, some had to doodle, then unexpected recall test… -> not usual task for people, not part of everyday life -> lacks realistic aspect Laney Strengths: • Standardized procedure: same questionnaire, had to answer same questions, use same scales (what scales?), shown same photographs in exp.2… -> easily replicable -> reliable • Low demand characteristics: participants were not told the true aim of the study. They were told it was about the relationship between “food preferences and personalities” -> limit the influence of demand characteristic – trying hard to contribute to experiment which wouldn’t work since they didn’t know the real aim -> higher internal validity • Many controls: e.g. controlled the rating scales-same for each subject, they controlled the number of questions – apart from critical questions -> researcher could be more confident that it was false feedback affected participants’ liking of asparagus -> internal validity Weaknesses: • Low population validity: There was a gender bias – 77% of participants were females (in experiment 1) -> not representative -> difficult to be generalized -> low population/external validity • Ethical issues: There was deception in the study – participants were not told the true aim of the study. They were told that the aim was to see the relationship between personalities and food preferences. It was lie – the true aim was to see if false positive memory could be planted and if it has consequences. Deception goes against ethical guidelines -> study was unethical Baron-Cohen Strengths: • Standardized procedure: All participants had to look at same photos, choose the describing word from the same 4 options, had the same glossary of words… -> easily replicable -> reliable • Internal validity because of glossary: Participants could use glossary to see the definition f words. If they didn’t know/understand the meaning of the option, they could see the definition. If there was no glossary, they might have known the real answer, the feeling of the person on photo, but would choose different answer due to lack of knowledge and not due to IV, no valid data would be obtained. But because of glossary, it was more likely that DV was affected by IV -> higher internal validity • Many controls: e.g. could use glossary, no pictures were included where the feeling could have been understood by the direction of eyes, same amount of males and females on photos – researcher could be more confident that IV affected DV-> internal validity Weaknesses: • Low external validity: In group 1 only 15 autistic males were used to represent AS/HFA people. Gender bias towards males and not a small number of AS/HFA people -> not representative -> difficult to be generalized -> low population/external validity • Low in mundane realism: Had to look at pictures of different people, had to choose their feelings from 4 options is not realistic/usual parts of everyday lives of people -> low in mundane realism -> low external validity because might not apply to real world and real situations Learning Approach (Learning approach looks at only observable (acquisition of) behaviors and suggests that behavior occurs as a result of conditioning through S-R links like classical conditioning (learning by association) and operant conditioning (learning by reinforcement). It also proposes that behavior is learnt as a result of social learning theory, where children observe and imitate a model) Bandura Silverman and Saavedra Pepperberg Why was carried out Previous studies had shown that witnessing adult behavior influences children. Bandura also wanted to investigate observational learning of aggression. To see whether children would imitate - reproduce aggressive behavior when model was not present and also, if male subjects would imitate male model and female subjects - female models more. To investigate the causes of client’s button phobia – evaluative or expectancy learning. Also, to treat child’s phobia, reduce the distress over buttons via targeting both disgust and fear responses. Psychologists believed that only primates have cognitive skills. Pepperberg wanted to test if non-primate can also demonstrate abstract symbolic comprehension; to see if a parrot (Alex) was able to use local abilities to distinguish between what’s same and what’s different Aim -To investigate observational learning of aggression -To see whether children would reproduce aggressive behavior when model was not present -To look for gender differences -To investigate the causes of client’s button phobia – evaluative or expectancy learning -To treat child’s phobia, reduce the distress over buttons via targeting both disgust and fear -To see if an avian subject could use vocal labels to demonstrate symbolic comprehension of the concepts of same and different. in learning of aggression. responses. Behavior investigated -Social learning theory – whether aggression could be observed and then imitated -Exposure to an aggressive model will produce more imitative aggressive acts than exposure to a non-aggressive model and no model -If children would be more likely to imitate same-sex model -If boys would imitate more aggressive acts than girls (+gender specific or not) -Evaluative learning as a cause of phobia (or expectancy) -Whether boy’s phobia was caused by evaluative or expectancy learning -Whether he was afraid of negative outcome while touching buttons or evaluated it as disgusting without anticipating any danger or threat -Whether imagery exposure and cognitive restructuring would treat his phobia rather that direct exposure and reinforcements. -Operant conditioning – through reinforcements. -Whether a parrot can demonstrate symbolic comprehension of same and different -Whether Alex could use vocal labeling to distinguish between what’s same and what’s different (the color, shape or material of an object) -Whether he could apply his understanding of concepts of what’s same and what’s different on novel objects Why learning approach Bandura investigated whether the emotion of anger could be learnt through observation and imitation of the models, which supports Social Learning Theory. Children were exposed to aggressive or non- aggressive models and were observed whether they imitated the behaviors. They were investigating whether phobias might be associated with evaluative learning rather than expectancy learning. Phobia began because of classical conditioning (S-R link). They suggested and investigated whether the emotion of disgust was a negative evaluation associated with the feared stimulus. When client was Study investigated behavior of parrot – if he could vocally show if he could distinguish between what’s same and what’s different. Pepperberg’s research was an example operant conditioning - learning approach through reinforcements. Alex was given the object as a reward for correct answers, which is positive reinforcement. exposed to feared stimulus (direct exposure) and given positive reinforcement (there was a use of operant conditioning), his fear increased, so the cause was not expectancy learning. After imagery exposure his distress reduced, providing the evidence that his fear was based on an evaluation of the negative disgust/fear stimulus rather than expectancy. IV and DV IV: behaviors of a model – aggressive or non-aggressive; the sex of model – male or female; sex of participant – male or female DV: mean amount of behavior observed in 8 categories. _ IV: whether the object is familiar or not; what’s same or different (shape, color or material) DV: whether parrots response to what’s same and what’s different is correct. Sample Opportunity sampling; 72 participants: 36 male and 36 female, from 37 to 69 months, all from Stanford University Nursery School. Opportunity sampling; 9-year- old Hispanic American boy. Opportunity sampling; One African Grey Parrot called Alex. How was data collected Observing the children through a one-way mirror. Observer was a male model and he recorded the data on a structured tabulated sheet, Data was collected using a likert scale. Participant had to rate his level of distress on “feelings thermometer”. He had to rate distress for different Alex was shown objects and asked what’s same and what’s different (color, shape or material) – by secondary trainer; number of correct tallying behaviors he saw in every 5 seconds. The observation lasted 20 minutes. Sometimes the female model also observed the behavior and inter-rater reliability was checked. size, color and types of buttons. Data was also collected during the therapy sessions from client’s verbal responses to imagery exposure and cognitive restructuring – e.g. before, midway and after imagery exposure. responses was noted if he vocalized the category correctly and Alex was rewarded an object. There were test for familiar objects, non-familiar objects and probes. Findings -Female subjects with male models imitated physical aggression with mean of 7.2 in Aggressive group, while same but non-aggressive group had mean score of 0.0 -Female subjects in aggressive group with male model scored the mean of 7.2 while male subjects in aggression group with male models scored significantly higher – 25.8 -Qualitative -Boy’s distress ratings decreased during and after imagery exposure when he had to imagine buttons falling all over him from 8 to 5 to 3 -Boy’s ratings decreased during and after imagery exposure when he had to imagine hugging his mother wearing shirt full of buttons from 7 to 4 to 3 -Data showed that boy was more afraid of small, plastic buttons (colored and clear) rating them as 8 – very distressing – on feelings thermometer -“Buttons are gross”; -Described buttons as “disgusting”. -On familiar objects, Alex scored 69/99 in first-trial only -On transfer test to novel objects Alex scored 79/96 in first-trial only. Conclusions -Witnessing aggression in a model can be enough to -Disgust plays a key role in the development and maintenance -At least one Avian subject, an African Grey Parrot, shows produce aggression by an observer -Children selectively imitate gender-specific behaviors (males – physical, girls – verbal) -Children selectively imitate same-sex models (for boys mostly) of a phobia -Direct exposure therapy is not effective, might even cause more distress when it comes to evaluative learning phobia -Imagery exposure and cognitive restructuring (since they helped boy with button phobia) can treat phobias caused by evaluative learning. symbolic comprehension of the concept same/different -Results which were highly above chance suggest that Alex understood what the questions were asking -Symbolic representation is not exclusive for primates. Application to everyday life Parents not fighting, controlling TV programs that their kids watch. Treating people with phobias caused by evaluative learning using imagery exposure and cognitive restructuring. Procedures used in this study could be used to train the animals. They can use the idea of observation and imitation. If they want their dog to imitate the moves, they could be shown the certain moves. Learning Approach Evaluation Bandura Strengths: • Standardized procedure: same room, models behavior was same for each group of participants, all participants were in the room for 20 minutes-> easily replicable -> reliable • Population validity: 72 participants were used, 36 males and 36 females, from 37 to 69 months old. No gender bias and not very small sample makes it representative to children -> generalizable -> high external/population validity • Inter-rater reliability: Male model observed the children but sometimes, female observer also observed and the data from both of them were checked for inter-rater reliability -> makes the study more reliable. Weaknesses: • Low ecological validity: subjects were not in their own but completely new room with different toys such as bobo doll, potato prints or mallets. It made the environment unusual/artificial for children -> could have behaved differently in their own setting -> low external/ecological validity. • Low in mundane realism: children had to observe unusual behavior of models and then being put in the room with different toys to play is not usual/realistic task in children’s’ everyday lives -> lacks realistic aspect -> low in mundane realism • Low reliability: inconsistency in when the female model observed the children. Study sais sometimes. -> not consistent -> difficult to replicate -> low in reliability. Silverman and Saavedra Strengths: • Ethical: boy and mother gave informed consent to participate in study; mother gave written consent on publishing the study -> informed consent is ethical so that participants fully understand and make decision to participate -> ethical guidelines are obeyed -> ethical • Useful application: study showed that imagery exposure and cognitive restructuring were successful for treating boy’s phobia of buttons -> at post treatment assessment sessions (after 6 and 12 months) boy reported minimal distress -> same therapies could be used for other peoples’ phobias caused by evaluative learning (rather than direct exposures) -> useful • Reliable: can be easily replicated due to the use of feelings thermometer -> 9 point scale feelings thermometer was used -> other studies can also use same thermometer for distress levels -> easy to replicate -> reliable Weaknesses: • Low population validity: Only one participant –> 9-year-old Hispanic American boy was studied. The results may not apply to the treatment of other peoples’ phobias since the participant could have been unique with unique phobia -> not representative -> not generalizable -> low population/external validity • Psychological harm: During direct exposure-based treatment boy’s distress level increased from session 2 to sessio3 and 4 indicating that boy became more distressed, psychologically damaged -> against ethical guidelines -> unethical Pepperberg Strengths: • High internal validity: secondary trainer, who hadn’t trained Alex before, was examining him on “what’s same” and “what’s different”. This reduced cuing effect, it would be more likely that IV affected DV rather than the influence of practice with same person -> reduced cuing effect -> high internal validity • High validity: lots of questions were asked; not only what’s same or different such as-> that would reduce expectation cuing -> DV would be more likely to be affected by IV rather that by expectation factor -> high in internal validity. Weaknesses: • Low population validity: Only one subject –> Avian Grey Parrot, Alex was used. The results may not apply to the other parrots since Alex could have been unique-> not representative -> not generalizable -> low population/external validity • Low in mundane realism: Learning and training about what is same and what is different is not natural task for parrots. As a test, parrots aren’t usually asked to say what’s same and what’s different. Task is unusual and is difficult to apply to real life -> lacks realistic aspect Social Approach (Social approach looks at how we work in social world, how individuals interact with others, work in groups. It includes the role of culture and society) Milgram Pilliavin Yamamoto Why was carried out To see whether it is the situation or the personality (situational or dispositional hypothesis) that lead to obedience to authority; to understand the actions of German soldiers during holocaust better. Milgram was Jewish. Previous research was conducted under lab conditions, Pilliavin wanted to investigate helping behavior in an ecologically valid setting; subjects could also see whether visual cues affected helping behavior, which was not previously investigated. Cognitive mechanisms involved in non-humans were not well known (Theory of Mind). Not known why chimps seldom help conspecifics voluntarily – might not understand the goal. No research about if and how they understand goal and then test whether they have flexibility for targeted helping. Aim To investigate how obedient people would be to authority; To see how large an electric shock subjects would give a helpless person when ordered to; To see whether its situational or dispositional factors that lead to obedience. To investigate helping behavior in a naturalistic setting; to investigate whether type and race of victim, model’s behavior had an effect on frequency and speed of help offered. To investigate whether chimps have the ability and flexibility to help another chimp depending on its need; investigate why they help seldom voluntarily. Behavior investigated -Whether people are obedient to authority -Whether situation or personality leads to authority -How large electric shock would subjects give to helpless man when ordered to -Whether they would go through the whole voltages or stop. -Helping behavior of bystanders -Helping behavior in ecologically valid setting -Whether type/race of victim affected helping behavior -Diffusion of responsibility. -Whether chimps have ability and flexibility for targeted helping -Whether they understand the goal and conspecifics need -Whether they would offer stick while stick was needed and straw when straw was needed -Altruistic behavior of chimps (Theory of mind). Why social approach Milgram looks at how we respond to the obedience of others/authority (the experimenter). He wanted to know whether it’s the situation (e.g. the experimenters lab coat/prestigious university/probes/strict facial expression) or the personality (different people stopped at different shocks) of participants that affect obedience. Study is investigating helping behavior which is how one individual interacts in response to another and whether this behavior is affected the size of the group (diffusion of responsibility hypothesis). He studied helping behavior (helping is part of social interactions) and how its affected by understanding the goal (if chimps could visually assess the goal and conspecifics need). Also studied altruism in non- humans – if chimps could be empathetic and offer stick/straw voluntarily or upon-request. IV and DV IV: - DV: The percentage of participants who went through each voltage level (or maximum voltage level each participant administered). IV: victim’s responsibility (ill - with cane or drunk – smell and bottle of alcohol); victim’s race (black or white); number of bystanders (however many people were present); IV: “can see” and “cannot see” condition DV: percentage of stick or straw given; percentages of which tool was offered first. presence of model (close or distant; helped after 70 or 150 seconds) DV: amount of people who helped the victim; time it took for them to help. Sample Volunteer sampling; recruited by newspaper advertisement and paid 4.50$; 40 men aged 20-50. Opportunity sampling; estimated number 4450 passengers travelling in train in NYC between 11am and 3pm. Opportunity sampling; 6 chimps, 5 chimps as participants - mother-offspring paring, all took part in previous cognitive studies, were experts at tool-use tasks. How was data collected Observing how many shocks each subject administered to learner. Data was collected after the experiment by using self-report, asking participants how painful shocks were on a scale of 1-14; Comments during procedures were noted. Through the observation method. Observers in the train counted the number of people who helped the victim, race of helpers and how long it took to help. They wrote down comments that passengers made. Observation method (event sampling). By observing first “can see” then “cannot see” and then “can see” conditions. In each, noted which tool was offered first (% of sticks or straw/tool or non-tool); upon request or volunteer. Findings -Minimum shock administered was 300 volts (5 stopped at 300) -26/40 – 65% of participants administered last, 450 volts -“It’s not fair to shock the guy”; “these are terrific volts”; -Researcher made notes when participants sweat, tremble, stutter, had seizures. -White victims without models both with cane (ill) and drunk received 100% help -Black victims without models with cane (ill) received 100% help; drunk received only 77%. -“It’s for men to help him”; “I wish I could help him but I’m not strong enough”; “I never saw that kind of thing before – -In first “can see” condition, 90.8% help was offered, 90% was upon request -In second “can see” condition, 97.9% help was offered, highly above chance -Ayumu peaking through and visually assessing conspecific’s need in “cannot see” condition. I don’t know where to look”. Conclusions -People are more obedient to destructive orders than expected -Obeying orders that cause harm to others is distressing -Obedience can generate conflict between internal moral issues and obey or not the authority. -Individual who appears ill (less responsible) is more likely to receive help than drunk -Men are more likely to help male victim than women -There is slight tendency of same race helping -There is no strong relationship between size of group and offered help (diffusion of responsibility) -Longer the situation goes on, more likely that individuals will leave the area/not help. -Provides evidence for chimps’ flexible targeted helping based on understanding the needs of other chimps -When could see and visually assess, they selected appropriate tool -Seldom helped without direct request. Application to everyday life Soldiers could be trained more efficiently since they can use some underlined features of authority from the Milgram’s study. Children could be taught to help others no matter race, gender or responsibility. Educate children to help altruistically and sometimes ask when they need help even if they don’t request directly, try to assess the situation and offer help if needed. Social Approach Evaluation Milgram Strengths: • Standardized procedure: same room; same volt generator machine; same task (to administer shock after wrong answer); same prods… -> easily replicable -> reliable • Internal validity: Participants were decepted, not told the true aim -> they thought that the study was about how punishment affects learning/memory -> less likely to try to unnaturally contribute to the experiment -> less bias -> high internal validity Weaknesses: • Low ecological validity: The room with the person in a lab coat and with the shock machine, also the task to administer shock to a learner is not usual for participants -> could have acted differently in more natural environment - > low external validity • Low population validity: Only 40 males took part -> biased towards males -> not representative of target population/lacks generalizability -> low external validity • Unethical: Participants were faced deception, they were told that the study was about how punishment affects memory, not the authority’s influence -> participants were lied to -> goes against ethical guidelines -> unethical Piliavin Strengths: • Standardized procedure: exact same clothes of victim (no tie, Eisenhower jacket), number of seconds the model would come and help (70s/150s), place of model (always next to the pole) -> easily replicable -> reliable • Population validity: approximately 4450 people took part in experiment, both men and women -> large sample, no gender bias -> representative -> generalizable -> high external/population validity • Ecological validity: usual setting for participants (the train the were actually using, from 11am to 3 pm) -> they were more likely to act naturally in their natural setting/ environment -> high external/ecological validity Weaknesses: • Unethical: Participants did not know they were taking part in experiment -> they were usual people using train on a normal day -> didn’t give informed consent -> could have been against their will/they might not wanted to take part -> goes against ethical guidelines -> unethical • Low internal validity: Since it was a field experiment, not everything could have been controlled, such as some participants could have been reading a book or newspaper and could have not noticed the victim -> this would bias the results -> low internal validity Yammamoto Strengths: • Counterbalance: Chimps had to do “can see” condition, then “cannot see” and then “can see” -> procedure was counterbalanced so that order effects (practice or boredom effects) were reduced -> IV more likely to affect DV rather than order effects -> high internal validity • Standardized procedure: All chimps were give same tools (e.g. stick, straw, rope…); were in the same booths, maximum time spent in the booth was standardized as well (5 minutes) -> easily replicable -> reliable Weaknesses: • Low population validity: Only 5 chimpanzee participants were used for experiment -> small sample -> not representative -> difficult to generalize -> low external/population validity • Low mundane realism: Chimps had to assess the needs of conspecific, given the tools, had to choose which was appropriate for helping the conspecific in the booth -> task is not usual -> difficult to apply to real life since it lacks realistic aspect -> low in mundane realism Biological Approach (Biological approach is interested in how physiology/biological processes affect psychology. Behavior, cognitions and emotions can be explained in terms of the working of the brain and the effect of hormones; suggests that similarities and differences between people can be understood in terms of biological factors and their interaction with other factors) Schachter and Singer Dement and Kleitman Canli Why was carried out To test two factor theory of emotion; the role of cognitions when we experience physiological arousal and the label we assign to that experience. This is in contrast to previous theory, which suggested that physiological arousal causes emotion. At that time the link between REM sleep and dreams had not been established; there were no previous experiments about dreaming and sleep that used scientific equipment; to investigate the relationship between REM and dreaming using EEG; to investigate link between dream content and eyes movement using EOG. Previous studies showed that there’s a link between amygdala and emotional experiences and studies using brain images had illustrated correlations between the level of amygdala activation and subsequent declarative memory recall. Canli’s experiment was carried out to test this connection between amygdala activation and emotional-based long-term memory recall using fMRI. Aim To investigate two factor theory of emotion/Cognitive labeling theory of emotion; to investigate the role of To test whether dream recall differs between REM and nREM sleep. (to answer if there are more dream recalls in REM To investigate whether amygdala is sensitive different levels of intensity to emotions based on subjective emotional cognition factors and physiological arousal in the experience of emotion; to investigate how we cognitively label physiological arousal when we have no immediate explanation and when there is no physiological arousal. than in nREM); to see whether directions of eye movement corresponds to the dream content; whether the dream length is connected to length of REM stage. experiences and to investigate whether the degree of emotional intensity affects the role of amygdala in aiding memory recall of stimuli classed as being ‘emotional”, intense. Behavior investigated -Two factor theory of emotion/cognitive labeling theory -The interaction of cognitive labels with physiological arousal -Whether we label our emotions with cognitive evaluations of the situation when we experience physiological arousal -Whether dreaming could be measured objectively; -Whether people see dreams during only (or more during) REM than nREM using EEG; -Whether dream recall would differ between REM and nREM sleep; -Whether participants can correctly estimate duration of their dream in accordance to length of in REM period; -Whether eye-movement patterns are related to dream content (using EOG). -Whether amygdala is sensitive different levels of intensity to emotions -Whether intensely rated pictures were memorized better due to amygdala -Whether activation of amygdala is higher during emotionally intense scenes (measured in voxels-volume and pixels); -Whether people’s rating of emotional intensity matched with amygdala activity and whether highly rated ones would be recognized well during recall test. Why biological approach They explain human emotions in terms of the mind, using cognitive cues in the environment to explain our physiological arousal. It is the Because they explain human behavior (dreaming) based on the measures of biological processes of brain activity and eye movement. Study uses Because Canli looks at biological process of amygdala (part of a brain) activity and how it affects psychology of emotional intensity and the interaction of cognitions and physiological arousal that leads us to emotions. scientific equipment to investigate biological processes (waves during sleep; eyes movement) and relate to psychology (dreams). EEG was used for correlation of brain activity-frequency and amplitude of waves during sleep to determine the stage of sleep and EOG to look at biological process of eye movement and relate to psychology-dreams and dream contents. memorization of intense or normal pictures using fMRI. IV and DV IV: physiological arousal (epinephrine or placebo), the injection information, the environmental cues (euphoric or angry)-7 conditions: Euphoric Epi Inf, Epi Ign, Epi Mis, Placebo; Angry Epi Inf, Epi Ign, Placebo DV: emotions (observed, reported). IV: woken up in REM or nREM stage; waking after 5 or 15 minutes DV: dream reported or not; participant’s estimation of dream-5 or 15 minutes; the report of dream content. IV: intensity rating of stimuli DV: voxels (volume and pixels) count; self-report (subjects’ ratings of picture intensity); percentage of forgotten, familiar or remembered pictures in test. Sample Volunteer sampling. Were awarded with 2 credits on the exam. 184 male undergraduates from University of Minnesota. Opportunity sampling. 9 adult participants, 7 males and 2 females; 5 were studied intensively. Volunteer sampling. 10 right- handed healthy females. How was data collected The data was collected by observation through a one-way mirror. Behaviors were coded on an activity index (event sampling); also through self- report. A questionnaire was given to participants, asking them to rate how angry or euphoric they felt and also an open-ended question about their feelings. Data from scientific equipment – EEG scanning showed the brain activity and the brain waves; EOG gave the data about eyes movement. Electrodes were attached to subjects; Self-reports were used-participants were woken up at particular time and asked if they had the dream, estimate the duration of the sleep (quantitative) and asked about content of the dream (qualitative). They spoke to a recording machine. The data about amygdala activation was collected using fMRI (voxels). Participants on fMRI machine had to look at pictures and rate from 0 to 3 the intensity level. After 2 weeks participants had to do unexpected memory test and had to choose from 96 previous and 48 foil pictures, which were remembered, familiar or forgotten. Quantitative. Findings -Epi Ign rated emotional arousal as significantly more euphoric (1.78) than Epi Inf (0.98) -Epi Inf scored 0.98 while Epi Mis scored higher – 1.90 -“The shot gave me shivers” -“I don’t like this personal question either”. - There were significantly more dream recalls (152) in REM than in nREM (11) - There were significantly less “no recalls” in REM (39) than in nREM (149) - A single dream followed predominantly horizontal movements – the participant reported dreaming about two people throwing tomatoes at each other. -Memory recall test results showed that scenes rated 3 were significantly more remembered than those rated 0-2 (p<0.05) -Scenes rated 0-2 were more forgotten than those rated 3 (p<0.05) -Quantitative data about amygdala activity-higher activation while rating the picture emotionally intense and less activation while rating intensity as low. -Vertical movement: climbing up a series of ladders looking up and down -Horizontal movement: two people throwing tomatoes at each other -Little/slight movement: driving a car and looking ahead the rad -Mixed movement: driving car, staring ahead the road, car speeding from left/man standing on the left side of a road. Conclusions -People will label emotions according to the cognitive cues in the environment around them and when there is no other explanation for their arousal -People with an appropriate explanation will not seek any further explanation for their arousal -Those with no physiological arousal will not seek an explanation/no looking at cues. -Dreams occur significantly more during REM sleep than in nREM and there is possibility that they occur only during REM -The length of an REM period and its estimation by the participant are very similar which indicate that dreams are not instantaneous events but experienced in “real time” -Eye movement during REM sleep corresponds to where the dreamer is looking in the dream so eye movements are related to dream imagery. -The amygdala is sensitive to individually experienced emotional intensity of visual scenes -The activity in the left amygdala can predict subsequent memory -The degree to which the amygdala activation at encoding can predict subsequent memory is a function of emotional intensity. Application to everyday life In hospitals when patients are given drugs that might have some side effects. They could be engaged I behaviors that might generate euphoria or happiness and this could help them go through any short negative side effects. For doctors to treat patients with sleeping disorder more efficiently. If the patients have problems with sleep during REM stage they could start investigating dreams more such as ask participants more about contents of but if EEG shows that problems occur during nREM they could try some other help and not dreams or dream contents. The findings of the study might be useful for teachers. They could use emotionally intense pictures or information with students in order for them to memorize and learn information better. Biological Approach Evaluation Schachter and Singer Strengths: • Standardized procedure: All participants had injection; their physiological changes were measured by physicians; they all had to go to a room for 20 minutes… -> easily replicable -> reliable • Control over extraneous variables: stooges action matching euphoric or anger condition (such as playing with hula hoop in euphoric condition and expressing annoyance – annoying comments – in anger condition), controlled if physiological changes actually occurred for subjects with epinephrine condition -> IV more likely to affect DV -> internal validity Weaknesses: • Lacks internal validity: Participants were awarded with 2 credits on the exam because of taking part in research -> may not act naturally since they do it for credits, don’t want to lose credits, upset the researcher so might not admit if the angry emotions were achieved -> low internal validity • Low population validity: 184 participants only males, no females -> biased towards males -> not representative of target population/lacks generalizability -> low external validity • Low in mundane realism: participants were asked to get the injection =, then put in the room with stooges who acts unusually (such as playing with hula hoop) -> not usual task for people in everyday life -> lacks realistic aspect Dement and Kleitman Strengths: • High internal validity: Used objective measures – EEG to see the brain waves and EOG for eye movement – data is free from researcher bias since they use scientific measure – high internal validity • High validity: Had controls such as the way all of the participants were woken up – with the bell ring – this control makes it more likely that the fact that the dreams, contents or dream recall will not be due to the ringing sound –> is more likely to be affected by DV rather than some other factor such as bell ring -> high validity Weaknesses: • Demand characteristics: The design of the study was repeated measures, which means that each participant had to go through more than one trial. This could have caused for participants to understand the aim of the study due to the same questions that they were being asked about such as the content of the dream or the estimated length of the dream -> this could have caused demand characteristics and untrue answers from participants in order to contribute the research or lie about seeing dreams all the time even if they did not -> lacks internal validity • Low population validity: only 9 adults took part, only 2 females and 7 males -> small sample and biased towards males -> not representative of target population/lacks generalizability -> low external validity Canli Strengths: • High internal validity: Canli used the equipment fMRI, which is scientific objective measure. It measured amygdala activity in voxels -> using scientific tools such as fMRI reduces researcher bias of collecting data and therefore makes study valid. • High reliability: procedure was standardized. Every participant had to go exactly same procedure such as looking at same 96 pictures, same rating scale (0-3), all had bite-bars for reducing head movement, all had to do unexpected recall test… -> standardized procedure is easy to replicate in -> highly reliable Weaknesses: • Lacked ecological validity: The task given to participants and the environment they were in was not usual – they were told to rate emotional intensity of 96 pictures and then do the unexpected recognition task of rating if they remembered, found familiar or forgot the pictures -> the environment - fMRI, bite-bar is not the parts of participant’s everyday life -> cannot be applied to everyday life-> is low ecological, external validity. • Low population validity: had only 10 participants, only right-handed females were used.-> small sample and biased towards females -> not representative of target population/lacks generalizability -> low external validity