--Original published at Tyler's Ideas

In the Myth busters mini-myth “Do Beer Goggles Really Exist?”, the results of the hypothesis were plausible but skewed. Some strengths of the myth were the number of subjects and both a female and male were subjects in the study. It is important to consider having both genders in a study due to there may be differences in the results based upon their gender.  It is also important to have more than one subject when trying to get accurate results in a study so that it is not biased based on one subject. Given that they only had three subjects which is not that many, so the results may be skewed. In order to make this study even more reliable they could have had ten to fifteen subjects and then gathered there data together.  Some weakness of the study includes the inconstant pictures and lack of level of consistency of blood alcohol content (BAC). Within an experiment, constants are very important. For example, people rate levels of attractiveness differently, so in this experiment it is hard to measure the accuracy of how the subjects are rating the attractiveness. Also, the number given to what the subject scored after taking the test does not have any true numerical value, meaning we can’t use this number to truly prove something. We also are unsure how they are scoring the numbers, so we don’t know what the number truly means. Over all the study does have some true potential just needs a few adjustments and more time to develop.

--Original published at HannahsCollegeBlog

There are many different and interesting topics in psychology. I know that sleep plays a major factor in how well your brain functions. Sleep is very important for the well being of your mind and body. The topic that I will be using to conduct my research study is sleep. My question is, does a lack of sleep have a negative affect on your mood and alertness? My hypothesis is, a lack of sleep causes a decline in the over-all mood and alertness of a person. I believe this due to the fact that when your brain doesn’t get the rest it needs, it won’t be able to function at to its full potential, causing your mood and your alertness to suffer. To start my procedure, I will need one single group of participants. To recruit my participants, I will ask fellow students in my classes and around campus until I get 20 volunteers. Once I get all of my participants I will have them sleeping eight to ten hours every night for one week straight, this will be the control group. After that one week of all of the participants getting a sufficient night sleep, they will all return back to the lab for testing. I will have other researchers pretend to be random people, and just have all twenty participants ‘socialize’ with my researchers who will have a chart and test and observe their mood, attitude, and responses. Once all of the data is collected, the same group of participants will be told to get only three to four hours of sleep a night for one week, this will be the experimental group. At the conclusion of that week, the participants will return back to the lab, get assigned to their previous researcher, and will ‘socialize’ once more, and further data will be collected. Once all of the data is gathered, I will compare the control group to the experimental group and decide whether my hypothesis is proven or rejected.

--Original published at Isabella's Psychology Blog

MythBusters is an amazing TV show that was dedicated to either proving or disproving myths. One of the myths on the show was that hands-free devices improve driving safety. When trying to either prove or disprove this myth they created two testing methods.

The first method used was tested only by the two hosts of the show, Adam Savage, and Jamie Hyneman. This was my biggest critique of this method since this is an abysmally small testing group. Another weakness that was caused by having this small of a testing group is that both participants were both in the experimental group and the control group. So if one of the hosts running the show had a bias he could have been unconsciously or consciously driving worse during some parts of the experiment.

Though despite my previous complaints on the first method of testing if hands-free devices improve driving safety, it did have some good aspects. To summarize, the person participating in the experiment had to drive through an obstacle course twice while taking a survey on the phone, once holding the phone and once using a hands-free device. Another thing that the MythBusters did in their first method had one of them hold the phone during their first time on the obstacle course, then the other used the hands-free phone on his first time on the obstacle course. I really liked that did this since it eliminated the confounding variable of familiarity of the obstacle course. For the phone conversations during driving, they found a way to eliminate the confounding variable of a dull conversation. This was done by having the driver take a survey over the phone while driving. After this method of the experiment was done they concluded based off of their results that the safety risk of driving while holding the phone and while using a hands-free device had no significant difference. Though the MythBusters opted to continue the experiment by trying a different method.

For the MythBusters second method for testing, if hands-free devices improve safety, I liked it much better. Since in the second method it fixed my main complaint from the first method of the experiment of not having a large enough testing group. In the second method of the experiment, there was a testing group of thirty people. Fifteen people were placed in the control group (Holding the phone while driving) and then the other fifteen people were placed in the experimental group (Hands-free device while driving). Each participant drove in a state of the art fully immersive driving simulator while following a navigation system. A person failed the simulation if they did not follow the navigation system or hit a computer generated car or computer generated person. All participants also had their eye contact on the road tracked where they were driving.

Overall I liked this method of the experiment better since it had a larger test group. Though in my opinion, I think that the experiment and control groups could have been bigger. My one complaint of the experiment though was that the procedure for the phone conversations while driving was not explained. From the video, it looked like they weren’t doing the survey like they were doing a survey over the phone like they did in the first method of the experiment. This allows for the confounding variable of a more exciting and distracting conversation may have on a driver to exist. So I would eliminate this confounding variable by having all the drivers take a survey.

--Original published at Site Title

Are women better than men at reading emotions? This is a question that I believe many people would agree that yes, women are better than men at reading emotions. The Myth Busters clip I watched attempted to get an answer to this question.

To test this theory, the cast members set up an experiment where they took pictures of themselves while making facial expressions that reflect different emotions such as happiness, anger, confusion, fear, and sadness. With these pictures, they focused specifically on the eyes, covering up the rest of the face. These snap shots of the cast member’s eyes were then shown to a pool of participants, both man and woman, and they were to guess what emotion the cast members were demonstrating just by reading their eyes. The members conducting this experiment then kept track of how many correct answers each participant got out of the total number of pictures shown.

Some strengths from this experiment were that they made sure they stated their hypothesis (women are better than men at reading emotions) in the beginning of the clip so the audience knew what was being tested, and also that they showed every volunteer the same 17 photos so there was consistency. Another strength from this experiment was at the end where they stated the results of the experiment, which confirmed that women are better than men at reading emotions. They even researched scientific evidence that showed that the female neuron system was larger and more active in the parts of the brain responsible for empathy and understanding and recognizing emotions in others to back up their results, which is something else that I thought they did well.

A weakness in this experiment was not stating the sample size, or letting the audience know exactly how many men and women participated. They should have had an equal number of men and women, because if they do not, it could skew the results, for example showing that women were worse at reading emotions because they had fewer participants. Another weakness I found was that although it was clear what they were testing for, it got kind of confusing on how they were measuring the results once they started talking about the speed of which the volunteers responded to the pictures. If they wanted to make speed a factor in addition to the number of correct answers that should have been mentioned in the beginning before the experiment began, and measured by using a stop watch for both the men and the women rather than just going off of their own judgement that the women were faster.

--Original published at Marisa Psych Blog

As I looked into topics we cover throughout the duration of this class, one topic stood out to me. Addiction is a very profound controversy in todays society. It correlates with both human behaviors as well as mental processes.

My question would be, If any, what genetic variables inside the human body make some susceptible to addition more then others?

Hypothesis: Looking into this research question, I believe we will find that genetics do not play a role in the action of addiction.

Explanation of Hypothesis: I think that different aspects of ones background, childhood, parental situation, location of living and social status are variables that increase possibilities of addiction. It seems to be the outer life of a human being rather then the inside, such as their genetic makeup.

For my procedure, I would get a group of participants from all different aspects of life. People from all classes, social structures, an locations will show a variation of results. Although, looking at people from similar lifestyles and up bringings may show comparable results, I feel as if looking into humans lives with less connections will produce a variation of why? Why are some more susceptible to addiction more then others and does it have to do with genetic make up or outside aspects? I would recruit participants with ones looking to answer the same question I am. Most people with addiction in there family have had these thoughts before. Finding the answer of why is difficult and I don’t think there is a direct and complete answer, but looking into the life of others may show the variables needed to support this study. I think with a social media release of the study, many would be interested and willing to comply with the project. Addiction is a very big issue in society and with answers or at least a show of data supporting one result over the other, may help human kind and the evolution of this dilemma.

--Original published at Gracie's Blog

Myth Busters: “Do Beer Goggles Really Exist?”

I chose to watch one of the short clips of “Myth Busters”. The short clip I watched was testing the myth that drunk people tend to find others more attractive than when sober. To go able this test, Adam, Kari, and Jamie all went through headshots of people and rated them one to ten on how attractive they were. The computer then totaled the score of each person. The next time they rated headshots of different people after they drank some beer. Adam’s score went up by 25, Kari’s score went down by 65, and Jamie’s score went down by 11. The group thought they should try it again but this time after they drank scotch. The third time they rated headshots Adam’s score went up by 13, Kari’s score went up by 63, and Jamie’s score went up by 6. The group came to the conclusion that when drunk people find others more attractive than when they are sober.

During this experiment I think that a strength was that they all three participated and rated people while sober, buzzed, and drunk. Adam and Jamie are males and Kari is a female which helped the diversity of the experiment. After each trial each result was slightly different, but overall they came to a conclusion that when drunk people find others more attractive. I also think a strength during this experiment was they were originally going to stop after drinking regular alcoholic beverages, but to actually get a full representation of rating people’s attractiveness while drunk they drank scotch also. Their scores were all different after the third trial, which helped clarify that Adam’s results were at a steady incline and Kari and Jamie’s results were a little up and down.

Some issues I had when watching this clip was the large range of numbers that they had to rate each person. The numbers were one to ten so if I were to rate a person’s headshot a five, and I saw the same person later I may rate them a six next time because to me a five and six are too close. If the scale was one to five that would help clarify how attractive the headshot is because there are less numbers to pick from. Another weakness was Adam, Kari, and Jamie had different headshots to look at for each trial. If they had to rate the same headshots each time, they could compare what they rated each person for each trial. Since everyone was different Kari could have received a lower score because the people she was given for the second trial were overall less attractive than the headshots in the first trial.

Overall, this short clip of “Myth Busters” was very interesting and gave me some insight on whether or not someone who is drunk finds people more attractive than they would when sober. The Myth Buster team went about this experiment very well and I like how they all participated in the experiment to receive ultimate results.

--Original published at Zachs College Blog

I chose to critique one of Mythbusters experiments which questioned “Do larger breasts equal bigger tips?”. The experiment was set up to determine if larger breasts brought in more tips by varying breast size on a daily basis ranging from small, medium, and large. The data concluded that women with larger breasts will in fact bring in more tips than small or normal breasts. Men gave 30% more to women with large breasts as women gave a whopping 40% more in tips. The original hypothesis made for this experiment can be held true as the experiment showed about larger breasts bringing in more tips. The independent variable in this experiment would be the Coffee Shop she was working at, while the variable changed would be breast size. One positive of this experiment was keeping this waitress at the same shop, dressed the exact same every single day, with the same amount of transactions sold per day except varying her breast size to show an accurate depiction of larger breasts bringing in more tips. I believe that one problem that could vary this experiment is having a waitress who isn’t good with service or being a nasty person overall to their costumers but to prove that this hypothesis is actually true it was good that she was a fantastic waitress overall. Its now proven that men and women are willing to shovel out more money to a person who catches their eye or they find sexually attractive. Overall, I feel like this experiment was conducted very well and it helped give a very good understanding on how bigger breasts can bring in larger tips for a waitress working anywhere in the world.

--Original published at Caroline's Blog

The Mythbusters mini-episode, “Do Hands Free Devices Improve Driving Safety?”, uses many methods of experimental design in a successful way. Having many different tests in the beginning part of the experiment when developing a hypothesis was very smart because it allowed them to build up and gather ideas to create an experiment. At first it did not seem as if it would be a good experiment due to the lack of participants. This changed when the two men brought in 30 more volunteers. Unfortunately, there was still a lack of control in the experiment. In the beginning, the two men tested the experiment using real cars on a course in the real world with hands held devices. Then the volunteers were in a simulation where they were guided and distracted by hands free devices. To make this experiment more successful, there could have possibly been more volunteers on the real-life course, although this could have been a potential safety risk. They were successfully able to come to a conclusion that hands-free devices are not safer than handheld devices after following the steps of experimental design well. However, their lack of participation across both the real-life driving and the simulation driving put them at a disadvantage. Their results were most likely affected by this which could make their conclusion incorrect. To improve the results for this experiment to get a more precise and accurate conclusion, the two men could acquire more participants for their experiment in hopes of creating a stronger argument and conclusion. Overall, the men did well with following the processes of experimental design.

--Original published at HarrysCollegeBlog

As I delved into my first lessons in Psychology, I noticed some very boring sight that thought i had long gotten rid of since I finished history. More names and dates of people to remember. I went into the course expecting to learn of many new interesting things about the mind, and how we as humans like to think, and i did indeed learn new things. To my distaste though, History is something I do not excel in, and history I must know. I fully understand why it is necessary to learn of the field’s history, to understand how it evolved over time, yet I don’t care for who they are, but simply what they contributed and how it changed how people thought about psychology. I do admit, later on after all the old people and their names, when they got into the real meaty subjects such as Genetics and culture it got more interesting. Immediately after, it dropped again as we got into sub fields.

After the first review, I grew more interested once again, with hindsight bias catching my eye. with a single event’s outcome effecting how we think about it. the part about theories and how to craft them was kind of boring, as I enjoy making theories about subject and knew how to do it, especially with the over complicated explanations. I didn’t find the rest of it particularly interesting, but it shocked me to think scientists wouldn’t use any means necessary to obtain their research. I understand government regulation is a thing, but there has to be extremists out there willing to do anything it took to figure out the mysteries of psychology.