Research in Psychology: Ethics (or the lack thereof)

The Milgram Experiment on Obedience - Original Footage

Top-10 Evil Human Experiments:  http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/

APA Guide for Ethics in Using Animals:  http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/guidelines.aspx

The Placebo Effect - Is it real or just imagined?

After reading the two articles linked below, write a 250 word minimum response:

Include in your response:

* what is the placebo effect
* explain H.K. Beecher's study which suggested the effectiveness of placebos
* what types of problems do these studies have?
* based on what you have learned, what is your opinion regarding the effectiveness of placebos?

http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html

http://www.chiro.org/nutrition/FULL/Debunking_the_Placebo.shtml

DUE DATE: Sunday, November 28th by midnight
REMINDER: do not COPY/PASTE and site any/all resources used

Are All Memories Alike?

Read the following articles about gender and cultural differences in memory.  Write an explanation using the information from the articles to explain these differences.

Gender Differences:     http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080220104244.htm

Cultural Differences:     http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep05/culture.aspx

Articles on Memory

Choose 3 of the following articles on memory to read and summarize.
Summaries should be posted to your blog along with the link for the article and at least one relevant picture 

Summaries should include:
- identify who conducted the experiment
- give a detailed overview of the experiment, include how it was conducted and the results
- explain how this research might be applied to real-life

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081028103111.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429091806.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070815105026.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091105132448.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215111433.htm

Summary posts are due no later than midnight on Wednesday, October 27th

Loftus and Palmer - study of memory 1974

The famous "car crash" experiment from 1974 - Loftus shows evidence for her theory that memory can be altered by adding information after the fact.  We will be reading and analyzing this experiment in class - this is an important study in the area of cognitive psychology/memory and will be very useful throughout the IB program both on the final test and possibly during the internal assessment.

Loftus, E. F. and Palmer, J. C. (1974)                 Reconstruction of automobile destruction

Background

Memory can be defined as capacity to retain and store information.

Many of the early studies of memory (e.g. Bartlett 1932) demonstrated how memories are not accurate records of our experiences.  It seems that we try to fit past events into our existing representations of the world, making the memory more coherent or make more sense for us.

Elizabeth Loftus is a leading figure in the field of eyewitness testimony research.   She has demonstrated through the use of leading questions how it is possible to distort a person’s memory of an event.

A leading question is a question that suggests what answer is desired or leads to the desired answer.

---

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate how information supplied after an event, influences a witness's memory for that event.

---

 Method

The study actually consists of two laboratory experiments.   They are both examples of an independent measures design.   The independent variable in both of the experiments is the verb used.  The dependent variable in the first experiment is the participant’s speed estimate and the dependent variable in the second experiment is whether the participant believed they saw glass.

---

 First Experiment

Method/Procedure

The participants were 45 students of the University of Washington.  They were each shown seven film-clips of traffic accidents.  The clips were short excerpts from safety films made for driver education. The clips ranged from 5 to 30 seconds long. 

Following each clip, the students were asked to write an account of the accident they had just seen.  They were also asked to answer some specific questions but the critical question was to do with the speed of the vehicles involved in the collision.

There were five conditions in the experiment (each with nine participants) and the independent variable was manipulated by means of the wording of the questions.

For example:

Condition 1: 'About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?'

Condition 2: 'About how fast were the cars going when they collided into each other?'

Condition 3: 'About how fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other?'

Condition 4: 'About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?

Condition 5: 'About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?'

The basic question was therefore 'About how fast were the cars going when they ***** each other?'.  In each condition, a different word or phrase was used to fill in the blank.  These words were; smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted.

The entire experiment lasted about an hour and a half and a different ordering of the films was presented to each group of participants.

The dependent variable was the speed estimates given by the participants.

---

Results of the first experiment

  Table 1.  Speed estimates for the verbs used in the estimation of speed question

VERB	MEAN ESTIMATE OF SPEED (mph)
Smashed	40.8
Collided	39.3
Bumped	38.1
Hit	34.0
Contacted	31.8

The results in table 1. show that the phrasing of the question brought about a change in speed estimate.  With smashed eliciting a higher speed estimate than contacted.

Explanation of findings

  Loftus and Palmer give two interpretations/explanations of the findings of their 1st experiment.

1.    Firstly, they argue that the results could be due to a distortion in the memory of the participant.  The memory of how fast the cars were travelling could have been distorted by the verbal label which had been used to characterize the intensity of the crash. 

2.    Secondly, they argue that the results could be due to response-bias factors, in which case the participant is not sure of the exact speed and therefore adjusts his or her estimate to fit in with the expectations of the questioner.  (This is also an example of a demand characteristic)

---

Second Experiment

Procedure/Method

The second experiment was to provide additional insights into the origin of the different speed estimates.  In particular they wanted to find out if the participants memories really had been distorted by the verbal label.

A similar procedure was used whereby 150 student participants viewed a short (one minute) film which contained a 4 second scene of a multiple car accident, and were then questioned about it.

There were three conditions and the independent variable was manipulated by the wording of the question.

50 of the participants were asked 'How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’

50 of the participants were asked 'How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?'

50 of the participants were not interrogated about the speed of the vehicles.

One week later, the participants returned and, without viewing the film again, they answered a series of questions about the accident.  The critical question was 'Did you see any broken glass?'  The critical question was part of a longer series of questions and was placed in a random position on each participants question paper.  There was in fact no broken glass in the film.

---

Results of the second experiment

Table 2.  Response to the question 'Did you see any broken glass?'

Response	Smashed	Hit	Control
Yes	16	7	6
No	34	43	44

These results show a significant effect of the verb in the question on the mis-perception of glass in the film.

---

Explanation of results

To account for the results of the second experiment, Loftus and Palmer developed the following explanation:

They argue that two kinds of information go into a person's memory of an event.  The first is the information obtained from perceiving an event (e.g. witnessing a video of a car accident), and the second is the other information supplied to us after the event (e.g. the question containing hit or smashed).  Over time, the information from these two sources may be integrated in such a way that we are unable to tell from which source some specific detail is recalled.  All we have is one 'memory'.  This explanation is often referred to as the reconstructive hypothesis.

For example in Loftus and Palmer's 2nd experiment, the participants first form some memory of the video they have witnessed.  The experimenter then, while asking, "About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" supplies a piece of external information, namely, that the cars did indeed smash into each other.  When these two pieces of information are integrated, the participant has a memory of an accident that was more severe than in fact it was.   Since broken glass corresponds to a severe accident, the participant is more likely to think that broken glass was present.

---

Evaluation of Procedure

Strengths of the method

Experiments allow for precise control of variables.  The purpose of control is to enable the experimenter to isolate the one key variable which has been selected (the IV), in order to observe its effect on some other variable (the DV). Control is intended to allow us to conclude that it is the IV, and nothing else, which is influencing the DV.   For example Loftus was able to control the age of the participants, the use of video and the location of the experiment.  All participants were asked the same questions (apart from changes in the critical words), and the position of the key question in the second was randomised.

Limitations of the method

The experiment was not typical of real life situations.  The experiments carried out by Loftus are artificial in the sense that they are different from how people would normally witness events.  For example, when the participants were giving their estimates of speed, they did not have any personal involvement in the judgement and had not taken part in the event.  When we witness events in everyday life, we often have some involvement in the people or the action. Therefore it should be difficult to generalise findings from laboratory experiments because they are not ecologically valid (true to real life).  

A further problem with the study was the use of students as participants.  Students may be very different from other people.  For example, students are used to remembering useless information, and are usually good at memory tasks compared with other people.

---

Evaluation of Explanation

Loftus and Palmer argue that two kinds of information go into a person's memory of a complex event.  The first is the information obtained from perceiving the event, and the second is the other information supplied to us after the event.  Over time, information from these two sources may be integrated in such a way that we are unable to tell from which source some specific detail is recalled.  All we have is one 'memory'.  This argument is called the reconstructive hypothesis.

One way in which we could criticise this argument is to recognise that it is not only the type of question asked but also many other factors which could influence your memory of an event. Other factors which include food, alcohol, emotions, environment, who you were with, what the event meant to you, and so forth. 

Some psychologists have made a further criticism of the argument.  They do not agree with Loftus that post event information changes the witness's original memory, never to be retrieved again.  They suggest that witnesses merely follow the questioner’s suggestions, leaving the original memory intact for retrieval under appropriate conditions. 

The main strength of Loftus' argument is its wider implications.  Based on evidence like that of Loftus's, the Devlin Report (1976) recommended that the trial judge be required to instruct the jury that it is not safe to convict on a single eyewitness testimony alone, except in exceptional circumstances or when there is substantial corroborative evidence.

Loftus's reconstructive hypothesis has also meant that the police and lawyers are urged to use as few leading questions as possible, (i.e. questions suggesting to the witness the desired answer) although in reality this practice is still widely carried out.

Reference

Loftus, E.F. & Palmer, J.C. (1974)  Reconstruction of auto-mobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory.  Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 13, 585 -589

Elizabeth Loftus: Studies of Memory

Are memories reliable?  Can false memories be implanted in your mind? What are the characteristics of memory and how does it really work?
An interview with Loftus in which she describes many aspects of memory and the studies she has conducted.
http://fora.tv/2009/07/14/Elizabeth_Loftus_Whats_the_Matter_with_Memory#chapter_04

Memory and the Eyewitness

An eyewitness has long been the most sought after piece of evidence in the criminal investigation of most crimes.  What was once thought to be so valuable has proven to have it's flaws.  Every year innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit, often through the use of eyewitness testimony.  Studies in the field of forensic psychology have shown that the memory is a very tricky phenomenon.  Find out what goes wrong with human memory and what can be done to remedy this situation.
http://www.open2.net/youtube_elizabeth_loftus.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-SBTRLoPuo

The Stroop Effect (journal #7)

Explain the Stroop Effect in detail: (this will require a little research on your part...)

• What is the background for this experiment?
• How is the experiment conducted? (explain step by step in as much detail as possible)
• What are the results?
• Why do these results occur?

*Include two pictures in this entry
*Do not copy/paste - restate ideas in your own words as much as possible - site all sources!
*This entry should be at least 250 words in length
*DUE DATE - Friday September 10th

Multitasking - Does Doing More Mean Doing Less?

A study conducted by Stanford University professor Clifford Nass uncovers that people who think they are excellent at "multitasking", in reality, do it very poorly.  On top of that, it may harm their thinking abilities.  To find out why this is so and how the study was performed listen to an interview with the professor.
Listen >>>  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112334449

The Myth of Multitasking (journal #6)

Answer the following questions after reading the article, "The Myth of Multitasking" by Christine Rosen in The New Atlantis.

1. Why is multitasking considered by many psychologists to be a myth?
2. To what does the term "response selection bottleneck" refer?
3. David Meyer has found that multitasking contributes to the release of stress hormones and adrenaline.  Why is this important?
4. Explain what Russell Podrack found regarding multitasking.
5. What does the author conclude could happen to our culture as a result of increased multitasking?

*Do not copy/post your answers - restate the information in your own words as much as possible.
*DUE DATE - Wednesday September 8th

Perception and the Pygmi

Observations published in 1961 by Colin Turnbull, described his experience with the BaMbuti tribe of Pygmies in Africa.  He was amazed with what he learned about this group of isolated people regarding perception:

The nature-nurture issue is found in perceptual development, just as it is in other dimensions of development. In the area of perception, the issue can be traced to the philosophers of the 17th and 18th centuries. Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant took the nativist view that children are born with predispositions to perceive the world in certain ways. Kant, for example, believed that our innate makeup causes us to sense and organize the objects of the world according to certain "categories." We perceive some things and are oblivious to others because of our inborn ways of organizing the world outside.

George Berkeley and John Locke took the empiricist view that experience determines our ways of perceiving the world. Locke, for example, argued that mental representations reflect the impact of the world on the sense organs. There is no particular inborn way of organizing sensations of the world. The world, instead, impresses the mind with its own stamp.
Today, few developmentalists subscribe to either extreme. Most would agree that nature (the nativist view) and nurture (the empiricist view) interact to give shape to perceptual development.
Turnbull’s classic observations of the BaMbuti Pygmies—particularly of a young man named Kenge—have implications for these views of perceptual development. Although they are recorded in a psychology journal, they also read like the writings of the anthropologist who studies various cultures. As you read the article, you will find many facts of interest to students of psychology, such as those concerning size constancy ("distance and size perception") and those involving names of colors.
Some Observations Regarding the Experiences and Behavior of the BaMbuti Pygmies

By COLIN M. TURNBULL
The identity of the BaMbuti Pygmies of the Ituri Forest in the Congo with the forest itself goes beyond their social life; they are also psychologically conditioned by their environment. This can best be illustrated by some observations that I made during a recent field trip in their country.
Distance- and Size-Perception

At the end of a particularly long and tiring period of trekking through the forest from one hunting group to another, I found myself on the eastern edge, on a high hill which had been cleared of trees by a missionary station. There was a distant view over the last few miles of forest to the Ruwenzori Mountains: in the middle of the Ituri Forest such views are seldom if ever encountered. With me was a Pygmy youth, named Kenge, who always accompanied me and served, amongst other capacities, as a valid introduction to BaMbuti groups where I was not known. Kenge was then about 22 yr. old, and had never before seen a view such as this. He asked me what the "things" before us were (referring to the mountains). "Were they hills? Were they clouds? Just what were they?" I said that they were hills bigger than any in his forest, and that if he liked we would leave the forest and go and see them and have a rest there. He was not too sure about this, but the BaMbuti are an incorrigibly curious people and he finally agreed. We drove by automobile in a violent thunderstorm which did not clear until we entered the Ishango National Park at the foot of the mountains and on the edge of Lake Edward. Up to that moment from the time we had left the edge of the forest, near Beni, visibility had been about 100 yd.
As we drove through the park the rain stopped and the sky cleared, and that rare moment came when the Ruwenzori Mountains were completely free of cloud and stood up in the late afternoon sky, their snow-capped peaks shining in the sun. I stopped the car and Kenge very unwillingly got out. His first remark was to reiterate, what he had been saying ever since the rain stopped and we could see around us, that this was a very bad country, there were no trees. Then he looked up at the mountains and was completely unable to express any ideas–quite possibly because his language had no suitable terms, being limited to the experience of a strictly forest people. The snow fascinated him, he thought it must be some kind of rock. More important, however, was the next observation.
As we turned to get back in the car, Kenge looked over the plains and down to where a herd of about a hundred buffalo were grazing some miles away. He asked me what kind of insects they were, and I told him they were buffalo, twice as big as the forest buffalo known to him. He laughed loudly and told me not to tell such stupid stories, and asked me again what kind of insects they were. He then talked to himself, for want of more intelligent company, and tried to liken the buffalo to the various beetles and ants with which he was familiar.
He was still doing this when we got into the car and drove down to where the animals were grazing. He watched them getting larger and larger, and though he was as courageous as any Pygmy, he moved over and sat close to me and muttered that it was witchcraft. (Witchcraft, incidentally, is known to the BaMbuti only through association with the Bantu. They have no similar concept of the supernormal.) Finally when he realized that they were real buffalo he was no longer afraid, but what puzzled him still was why they had been so small, and whether they really had been small and had suddenly grown larger, or whether it had been some kind of trickery.
As we came over the crest of the last low hill, Lake Edward stretched out into the distance beyond, losing itself in a hazy horizon. Kenge had never seen any expanse of water wider than the Ituri river, a few hundred yards across. This was another new experience difficult for him to comprehend. He again had the same difficulty of believing that a fishing boat a couple of miles out contained several human beings. "But, it’s just a piece of wood," he protested. I reminded him of the buffalo, and he nodded unbelievingly.
Later we went all over the National Park with one of the African guides. He and Kenge conversed in KiNgwana, the lingua franca of the area, and Kenge was constantly looking out for animals and trying to guess at what they were. He was no longer afraid or unbelieving; he was trying to adapt himself, and succeeding, to a totally new environment and new experience.
The next day he asked to be taken back to the forest. He reverted to his original argument. "This is bad country, there are no trees."
The inability of the BaMbuti to correlate size-constancy and distance had never even struck me as a possibility. In the forest, vision is strictly limited to a matter of yards, the greatest distance one can see, when up a tree looking down onto a camp, being a hundred feet or more below. Kenge was, however, a sophisticated and well travelled Pygmy. He had been with me a long time, had travelled along roads where he could see for as much as a quarter of a mile, and had seen aircraft and knew that they contained people. Such instances, however, were rare, and on the whole his experience of visual distance was limited to the relatively slight diminution of size in seeing a person or people walking along a road a quarter of a mile away. He had seldom seen any animal from further away than a few yards, he had never seen any boat bigger than a dug-out canoe, and that no further away than a few hundred feet.

http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/templates/student_resources/0155060678_rathus/ps/ps06.html