Monthly Archives: September 2018

Bonus Blog Post- Miguel

--Original published at Gracie's Blog

“Miguel has been struggling with his coursework lately. He has felt very tired in recent weeks and has found it difficult to focus on his studies. Even though he is always tired, he has trouble falling asleep at night, is irritable during the day, and picks fights with his roommates. He is a bit of a perfectionist and gets mad at himself when he makes even tiny mistakes. It’s gotten to the point where he doubts his ability to do anything right.”

From a psychodynamic approach, Miguel seems to have had trouble in the past, and due to his unconscious mind he is having trouble falling asleep and irritable during the day. If something dramatic in his past happened, he could be thinking about past experiences or having memories which distract him. Miguel’s unconscious mind is uncontrollable, making it hard for Miguel to overcome his behavior. Certain instances during the day may trigger memories or thoughts about his past.

From a behavioral approach, we learn that Miguel is a perfectionist. Since Miguel is a perfectionist, people can physically see the way he reacts to failure or mistakes. If someone was watching Miguel they could observe that Miguel gets angry when he feels what he did is not perfect. Miguel gets mad at himself after messing up, which is something someone can see on the outside.

From a humanistic perspective Miguel needs more sleep and he attempts to get more sleep, but has no luck. Due to his lack of sleep, Miguel has trouble controlling his anger and how fast he gets irritated. Miguel’s studies are also hard for him because he is not getting the sleep he needs to focus academically.  sleep is an important role in a human’s life, and without much sleep Miguel’s behavior does not improve.

From a cognitive approach on Miguel’s behavior, we discover that Miguel gets angry quickly and over little things. Miguel does not take the time to think instances over to react the way he should. Cognitively, Miguel does not have good concentration and struggles with school work so he may not interpret certain subjects the way he should. Miguel also gets in fights with his roommates possibly because he does not think before he speaks and says stuff to make his roommates upset.

From a the neuroscience perspective, Miguel seems to have a short temper and quick to react to certain instances. For example, Miguel gets angry when he does not do things the way he thinks he should. Miguel’s emotions show when he does not do something the way he should, so he doubts himself and that causes him to not try. If someone feels that they cannot do anything right, they start to think they are not good enough. A possible reason why Miguel reacts this way may be because Miguel was always praised for doing such a good job when he was with his family, but now without the encouragement, one little mistake could make Miguel feel like a failure.

From a social-cultural perspective, Miguel’s anger that he shows in public due to not achieving everything could possibly be taken differently depending on someone’s culture. Miguel does not hide his emotions and lashes out on his roommates making it look as if he does not know how to approach a problem like most humans. The way Miguel acts could represent what he saw as a child and he may not see a problem with the way he talks to his roommates, and his roommates take what he says the wrong way.

 

Research Methods Critique

--Original published at AlyssaM

I watched the Mythbusters one, “Are Women Better Than Men at Reading Emotions?” For starters, in their experiment, they did well timing it from the very start. They were not testing response time in men and women, so it was not a necessity for the study, yet they did. In the end timing it, proved useful because it showed that women are quicker to answer than the men regarding reading emotions. The organization of the experiment also was beneficial. They knew what they were doing in keeping each subject separate and doing the test individually, which kept the subjects from influence based off the others. The Mythbusters also did well having a diverse group of contestants take place. However, there always is room for improvements and way studies can be done better. From what I could see in the video, it did not seem they had more than seven to ten subjects take the test. The more people that partake in a study, the more strong and accurate the results will be. Their average would be better off if they even had 50 volunteers helping out. They could take the study farther and see if age affects the outcome; such as how fast people react when they are young versus an elderly person. They could also test something like are middle-aged people and older more accurate due to perhaps experience, compared to a teenager or young adult. Their test was fine, but they could have extended it and discovered far more than one tiny fact. I feel it was too simple and did not go as into it as they could have taken it.

First Impression Post #1

--Original published at Garrettscollegeblog

The Mythbusters experiment “Do Beer Goggles Really Exist” asks three people to rate groups of individuals on physical attractiveness; once sober, once buzzed, and once drunk. The groups of individuals changed after each rating for each contestant. Outside participation allowed for each group as a whole to be judged and considered equally attractive. Two out of the three contestants discovered that they find people less attractive at the buzzed state of drinking. However, all the contestants rated higher in the drunken state compared to the sober state.

This experiment as a whole contains little strengths. One is that Mythbusters gathers results from both the male and female genders. From this they could discover whether “beer goggles” can occur for both genders, and based off of their results, they can. Another strength is the rating system. Each contestant only receives 5 seconds to rate every individual photo, which means every choice is instinctual. On the other hand, this experiment contains many weaknesses. Physical attractiveness differs from person to person. This means that one group judged by one person as equally attractive could be seen as more or less attractive by the contestant. Another weakness comes about in the drinking act. The contestants drank to their own knowledge and each person is a different weight with a different tolerance level. What one contestant considers a buzzed state another may consider their drunken state, and vice versa. The biggest weakness, however, was the use of deductive reasoning. Three contestants receiving positive results to beer goggles in an experiment containing many holes such as this one is not enough to deem the myth plausible.

First Impression 1

--Original published at Carly's College Blog

For my chapter one first impression, I chose the mini myth titled “Do Waitresses Get Bigger Tips When They Have Bigger Breasts”. Being a female, I wasn’t surprised when the conclusion of their experiment was a yes.

While carrying out the experiment, they had Kari work the same three shifts at the coffee shop on three separate days. Each day, Kari wore the same clothes, wig, makeup, and gave the same level of service to all of the customers. The only thing that changed each shift, was her breast size. At the end of the experiment, the days that Kari wore sizes small and medium, men tipped an average of 90 cents making the total about 72 dollars. The day they had Kari wear the triple D, tips from male customers increased by 30% and the total for that day was 92 dollars.

I found one strength and one weakness that each stood out to me. The weakness being while they were viewing the security footage they continuously put emphasis on the way men were looking at Kari and checking her out. While the purpose was to gauge the difference the breast size made, I feel as though they still could have left those parts out. Reacting to men checking her out had no effect on the experiment. The one strength I found though, was how they didn’t exclude the female customers from the experiment, and kept those tips separate. I was a little surprised to see that the female customers’ tips also increased by 40% on the day Kari increased her breast size to the triple D.

First Impression Post 1

--Original published at Bailey PSY 105 Blog

For my first impression post, I chose to critique the Myth Busters video questioning whether or not you would reach your destination faster if you weaved in and out of traffic, or if you stayed in one lane the entire drive. The way the group tested this was by sending two cars into rush hour traffic at the exact same time with the same destination. Initially, the weaving car pulled ahead, but by the fifteen minute mark the single lane car was in the lead and remained there until about halfway to the destination. Although they did not show the results in the mini clip, it is implied that the weaving car made it to their destination first.

Some positives I found within the study was that the cars were released at exactly the same time, traveled the same route, and had the same destination in mind. These are all very important because without exposing the two cars to the same variables, there is no way that the study could have been accurate. Another thing I liked about the study was the information provided throughout about the mental state of both drivers during their journey. For example, the weaving driver demonstrated high levels of stress and anxiety through the trip, whereas the single lane driver stayed calm and relaxed the entire time. I thought this provided great insight as to whether or not weaving in and out of traffic was worth the extra time driving aggressively may or may not gain you.

The first issue I found within this study is one of human error. The weaving car did not necessarily follow the route that all drivers would choose, and I believe this damages the results because it does not properly gauge whether the driver chooses the best possible lanes to switch into. I don’t think that there is a solution for this problem, because there is no way to survey every driver on the road in order to know which lanes they would switch into and when they would switch. I also think the weaving car may not accurately represent how aggressive a drive may be when he or she is desperate to get to work on time. A solution to this could be selecting a population of drivers with strict job timelines who would be willing to be observed on their morning commute. Another issue I found with the study is that it is 100% chance as to which lane the single lane driver chooses, and if that lane arrives faster than any others. Because this experiment was performed with such a small sample (only having one driver stay in their lane), a possible solution could be taking a larger amount of drivers on the same day and in rush hour traffic each stay in a different lane for the duration of their commute. This coincides with my final issue of the study, which is the company using such a small and limited population for their experiment; one that can not possibly accurately represent a large group of drivers. A solution to this would be to simply obtain a larger sample size to perform the experiment.

Overall, I think this episode of Myth Busters did the best with what they had available, which is a small group of drivers and a relatively limited amount of time to perform the study. In my opinion, though not without error, the experiment was relatively correct and most likely provides largely accurate results.

First Impression Post #1

--Original published at Psychology 105

I watched the Mythbusters episode ‘Dream Weaver’ which asked the question, “does weaving through traffic actually get you to your destination faster?” The myth explored during the episode was that by staying in one lane, you can actually make it through traffic faster than you would by constantly changing lanes. Since this was the myth in question, I would say this is the original hypothesis for the experiment. The independent variable was the method of driving used: whether the driver was weaving through traffic or staying in one lane. The dependent variable then was the amount it time it took to travel a certain distance. There were two subjects in the test, and they were driving on the same freeway during the same time of day. I thought it was good that the two subjects were driving under the same conditions during this test because traffic can vary greatly depending on several factors. Do people drive more frantically in the morning while they’re on their way to work? Do they drive more carefully when it’s raining? I think these factors would impact the results as well so it was good to keep these controlled to keep them from hindering the overall goal of the experiment, even if it would have been interesting to see their impact as well. Ultimately, they found that it was not quicker to weave through traffic than it was to stay in one consistent lane. However, I think a weakness of the experiment is that there was only one trial conducted, and it was conducted with such a small sample size. It’s hard to tell how accurate the results are when they only ran one test. Also, people can have different driving abilities which may impact the results as well and this would be a difficult variable to measure and control. Overall, I think the experimenters did a good job controlling what variables they could, but it’s hard to gauge whether this myth holds true in general or was just supported in this specific case.

Bonus Blog: Theoretical Lenses in Psychology

--Original published at HuntersCollegeBlog

Miguel has been struggling with his coursework lately. He has felt very tired in recent weeks and has found it difficult to focus on his studies. Even though he is always tired, he has trouble falling asleep at night, is irritable during the day, and picks fights with his roommates. He is a bit of a perfectionist and gets mad at himself when he makes even tiny mistakes. It’s gotten to the point where he doubts his ability to do anything right.

 

Using the theoretical lenses, I’ll explain Miguel’s behavior:

Psychodynamic: Miguel may have problems falling asleep at night and focusing, because his psychodynamic unconscious mind could be keeping him up, forcing him to think about everything else around him that he has to do. His unconscious mind could also be telling him that he’s not good enough, which is why he may think he can’t do anything right, and why he gets mad when he makes a small mistake.

Behavioral: Miguel could’ve picked up his perfectionist tendencies from someone else. He could see them being perfectionist, and not even realize that he too is trying to be like that. When he sees someone else make a mistake, he gets mad too when he makes one because perfectionist are suppose to be perfect. He could be copying their behavior.  He may not think much of it, but if he’s seeing other people act the same way, he could be picking up those behaviors from them, and not even realizing it.

Humanistic: This is focused on personal growth, so if Miguel doesn’t believe that he’s capable of growing, then he won’t. He needs to accept the fact that mistakes are apart of personal growth, and he can’t let that affect him negatively. He doesn’t think he can do anything right, because he isn’t focused on that aspect of personal growth, and he isn’t telling himself that he’s valuable, whether he’s a perfectionist or not.

Cognitive: His thinking patterns could be affecting how he receives information. If he’s constantly thinking about something else while the teacher is giving a lecture during class, he wont be able to remember everything they said, so that will affect his ability to remember, and it will interfere with how he’s processing information, (only in bits and pieces if he’s going in and out of focus). This may also be affecting how he thinks of himself, since cognitive psychology is all about the brain.

Cultural: Some ways of how he’s acting could be based on which cognitive processes are universal and specific. Maybe he specifically was told as a young child that in order to make his parents happy, he had to do everything right, and had to pay attention to everything, and he wasn’t allowed to ever get upset, so its affecting him now, because he isn’t the perfectionist he was taught to be, and he’s snapping at people, which could’ve been a big no no when he was growing up. He could be unfocused as well because as a child he was so used to having to pay attention to everything, that now it’s catching up with him, and he isn’t able to stay on track.

Neuroscience: This includes biological perspective. His behavior could be exactly like his parents’, due to genetics. Maybe one of his parents gets angry easily, and tends to snap. Maybe one of them has a short attention span as well, which could be why Miguel can’t focus in class.

 

Extra Credit Post

--Original published at Rachelsblog

“Miguel has been struggling with his coursework lately. He has felt very tired in recent weeks and has found it difficult to focus on his studies. Even though he is always tired, he has trouble falling asleep at night, is irritable during the day, and picks fights with his roommate. He is a bit of a perfectionist and gets mad at himself when he makes even tiny mistakes. It’s gotten to the point where he doubts his ability to do anything right.”

Based on psychodynamics, Miguel’s problems are not within his consciousness, but within his unconscious mind. He may not know the root of his issues, which is what psychodynamics is all about. Psychodynamics is the about unconscious mind and desires. He may be desiring something he is unaware of. He may have internal issues he is unaware of as well.

Based on behavioral psychology, Miguel may be fighting with his roommate because he sees others doing this kind of behavior. Behavioral psychology has to do with observable behaviors and if he sees others acting in a sort of way, he will tend to do the same. This can also lead back to his unconscious mind, and he may be unaware of what is causing the fighting.

Based on humanistic psychology, Miguel is struggling internally with personal strength. He may feel as if he is not smart enough for the course load he has been handed, since he is clearly struggling with it. He may have doubts about his personal strength which causes him to lash out.

Cognitive psychology studies the brain and its thoughts. Miguel may be struggling in class because there is a lot of information thrown at him and he may have trouble retaining it all. This may cause frustration and may make it hard for him to do his work if he doesn’t fully understand it.

Cultural psychology is the study of how mental processes and behaviors vary across cultures. Miguel may be struggling at home and bring the tension with him to college. He may be feeling pressured by people he has at home. In his education he may have been very smart and top of his class which set a standard for him that he may not be able to reach at the college level. This may explain his frustration with his course load.

Neuroscience is how the brain and body enable memories and emotions and sensory experiences. Miguel is having a difficult time with his course load and this may be caused by a weak ability to memorize the information his professors are giving to him in his classes. All his problems can relate back to neuroscience, considering it is all about his emotions and brain.

Extra Credit- Miguel Scenario

--Original published at Cecilia's Thoughts

Miguel has been struggling with his coursework lately. He has felt very tired in recent weeks and has found it difficult to focus on his studies. Even though he is always tired, he has trouble falling asleep at night, is irritable during the day, and picks fights with his roommate. He is a bit of a perfectionist and gets mad at himself when he makes even tiny mistakes. It’s gotten to the point where he doubts his ability to do anything right.

Based on psychodynamics, his problem is not actually with his roommate, he actually has internal issues going on which is why he is such a perfectionist and gets mad at even himself. Psychodynamics focuses unconscious desires and thoughts rather then his conscious desires.

Behavioral psychology is the study of only observable behaviors, meaning it has nothing to do with thoughts, but just studying a person’s actions. Miguel may have experienced his parents or others around him being irritable and fighting with one another which is why he may act in this way.

Humanistic psychology is a strength-based approach that focuses on personal growth and freedom to choose. Using humanistic psychology, Miguel might be struggling because he feels he has no worth because he is behind with his coursework and with this he then struggles with sleep, and his general mood. He has trouble believing that he can do anything right, which is what humanistic psychology is trying to help, this approach looks for a person’s personal best. Since he has such a negative outlook on himself, this could be the cause of the negativity towards others around him.

Cognitive psychology is an approach that looks at the brain’s processes of memory, learning, and thinking. This approach can be used to describe why Miguel is feeling so behind and overwhelmed. Miguel could have a memory problem, and in college courses, you are given a lot of information that you are expected to remember, this frustration can be the cause of the other problems he is experiencing. Which used cognitive psychology to determine the cause of the problems he is having.

Miguel’s cognitive problems can also be the root of the neuroscientific outlook neuroscience is how the body and brain enable emotions, memories, and sensory experiences, so if he has trouble with memory, his problems in coursework can be traced back to neuroscience.  

Cultural psychology is the study of the different cultures and societies and how the differences affect a person’s thinking. Miguel could have been raised in a home and culture where there was a lot of hostility and fighting which would describe why he is fighting with his roommate.

 

Research Methods

--Original published at Cecilia's Thoughts

In this experiment the MythBusters crew is testing whether females or males can sense emotions better. Their hypothesis was that females are able to read people’s emotions better than males are. They tested this by having four of the team members to make basic facial expressions; sad, happy, mad, and confused. They then cut out everything of the face except the team member’s eyes. A group of people, both men and women came and sat in a chair and looked at a projector and were showed the images of the eyes and were asked what expression the person was making. They tested each person one at a time and recorded their answers. Generally the women answered faster and more accurately, having an average answers correct of 10.6, whereas the men scored 9.6. The MythBusters believed there was going to be a larger gap between the scores, but their hypothesis was still proved to be correct. 

This experiment had both strengths and weaknesses where it can be improved. One weakness of this experience is the simple fact that not everyone expresses emotions in the same way, some people may show their emotions very prominently on their face whereas, like in the experiment Jamie Hyneman had the same facial expression for every emotion (which they then did not use his pictures in the experiment), some people do not wear their emotions on their face. Which raises another question, can you really test which gender can sense emotions more accurately by solely relying on who can recognize facial expressions better? This error alone can lead to other experiments that are branched off of this. Another possible error is that the pictures are of the people who are recording the results, so the test subjects are looking at the actual people in the pictures which could have aided in deciding which emotion the person in the picture was showing. A positive of this experiment is like what I have already discussed, they developed a clear hypothesis that they tested. Another strength of this experiment is that they tested more than just one male and one female.

Overall, I think this short-slip from MythBusters questioning if males or females were better at recognizing emotions was informative. Though I think that further questions should be asked about how a person, male or female, can detect emotion and which gender can do it more accurately.