First Impression Post-Week​ 4

--Original published at Lynsey Wissler's Blog

Lynsey Wissler

TED Talk- Exploring the Mind of a Killer

  • What drew you to choose the talk you did?
    • I personally chose this talk because I find the whole concept of how someone could kill another person unbelievable. I think it is interesting and wanted to see how the mind of a killer works to make that “okay” for them to kill someone. I also am interested in how the idea to kill someone comes about because people are not born killers.
  • Briefly, summarize the talk.
    • The talk begins with describing how a normal brain is structured and how a killers brain is structured. It then goes on to explain how a killer brain is damaged and how the timing of the damage can affect the killer. However, every killer, despite their age had damage to their orbital cortex.  The talk also describes that killer have a high-risk gene. The gene is also a common gene found on the x chromosome of normal people as well, resulting from too much serotonin. However, In order to express the gene in your personality, you have to be involved in a traumatic event.  The presenter then goes on to say that serial killers are his ancestors and he makes a joke about how you never know who a killer will be.
  • What did you find most interesting about the talk?
    • I found most interesting how severe violence is what triggers the killing in the murderers. I personally never really thought about the “why would they chose this life” which this video made me do. This video also opened my perspective of the fact that it also might not always be a choice, genetics or situational experiences may have caused their brain to react.
  • How trustworthy did you find the presenter and the information she or he presented? Explain why. (Note: you must go beyond talking about the reputation of TED talks in general)
    • I personally think that this presenter was trustworthy. He stated that he studies neuroscience and professor at the University of California. However, I did feel as though he only presented a little bit of information on a very broad topic.
  • Come up with a research idea of your own based on the information presented in the talk and briefly outline how you would conduct it.
    • My research idea would be, is there a way to predict when people will be killers, based on family history and traumatic experiences. I would conduct this study by looking at killers families and studying their experiences and how they compare with the killers. I would also measure the serotonin levels in their brain along with the orbital cortex to see if they are similar to that of their killer ancestors.

Extra Credit- Coke vs. Pepsi

--Original published at Lynsey Wissler's Blog

Lynsey Wissler – Coke vs Pepsi Experiment

  • What were the strengths of the research design?
    • One strength of the research design was the fact that it was a single blind study. Another strength was that the soda analyst was in a different room.
  • What were the limitations of the research design?
    • There were some limitations. Thes limitations included previous biases that the soda drinker had about the soda. Going into the experiment she was able to tell the difference between the two sodas and was expecting to tell them apart which limited the variability of the results.
  • What potential confounding variables were present in the study?
    • There were several potential confounding variables, one of those being the drinkers bias towards the soda. Another variable was perhaps the clear cups; the drinker could possibly tell the color difference of the sodas. Another variable would be the conversations in the hallway could’ve influenced her decisions.
  • Was the conclusion we drew valid? Why or why not?
    • The conclusion that we drew was no, people can not tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. For my group specifically, I would say that that conclusion is not valid. Our group had 5/5 of the results correct, therefore saying that you can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. However, when looking at the class data as a whole it is clear that you typically can not tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. This is so clear because most of the people in the class received a 3/5 or a 2/5 for accuracy.
  • What are 5 specific changes you would make to the research design to improve the study?
    • 5 specific changes that I would make to this study are as follows
      • 1. Non-transparent cups
      • 2. Each taster in a separate room
      • 3. No communication between the server, taster, and the flipper
      • 4. Longer time between drinks
      • 5. Less information to the taster before drinking the soda

Week 2 First Impression

--Original published at Lynsey Wissler's Blog

“Is Yawning Contagious?”

Lynsey Wissler


  • having a control
  • having someone start the yawning
  • constant observation
  • cameras in every room
  • tested a large sample (50 people)
  • identified questions
  • developed hypothesis
  • analyzed and collected data
  • dependent and independent variable


  • having someone start the yawning
    • this could be a problem because they didn’t initiate the yawn on themselves. WHen the myth buster put the participants into the room, yawning was almost like cheating. To resolve this they could have not yawned every time they put someone in the room.
  • only observational, not scientific evidence
    • they did not have any scientific evidence that the yawning was contagious. The only evidence they had was from their observations leaving a wide range of other possibilities for outcomes. They could have researched more on the topic.
  • not thinking of cofounding variables
    • There could have been variables outside of the experiment that was impacting the yawning and the effects they had on each other. They did not consider these and if they would have they could have tried to eliminate them.
  • did not review the literature
    • They did not research before the experiment to see the literature that goes along with it. This could have helped build a stronger experiment.


Extra Credit Blog Post

--Original published at Lynsey Wissler'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.

  • Psychodynamic
    • This approach focuses on the hidden mind. This approach to psychology would assume that Miguel’s behavior is motivated by childhood experiences and hidden drives or conflicts. It shows how unresolved feeling shape our life conflicts. It could be that something he is not even still thinking about is driving his behavior.
  • Behavioral
    • This approach can be explained by classical conditioning. It says that behavior is shaped with punishments and rewards. It is believed that everything we do is not driven by thoughts or feelings. It also is stated that psychological problems are best treated with behavioral patterns. This being said, from a behavioral approach Miguel is acting this way almost out of habit. At some point in his life, he was taught that this was okay.
  • Humanistic
    • This approach shows that our behaviors are strength based, that people are inherently good. They belive that your reality is how you construct it. This approach would believe that Miguel, deep down inside is innately good. If Miguel discovers this side he can change how he acts.
  • Cognitive
    • This approach focuses on internal process. How we as humans solve problems and think. This approach would believe that if Miguel changed his thoughts that he can change his feelings towards a situation and perhaps not be as hostile and angry.
  • Neuroscience
    • This is a biological perspective which is becoming increasingly popular. This perspective includes behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology. The behavior of this is explained by the brain chemistry, meaning that it is the chemicals in Miguel’s brain that are driving this behavior.
  • Cultural
    • This perspective shows how mental processes and behavior are changed by the influence of setting, situation, and culture. This approach would say that Miguel’s behavior is from his setting and cultural background.

PSY 105D, Fall 2017-Introduction

--Original published at Lynsey Wissler's Blog

My name is Lynsey Wissler. I am from a farm in Lancaster Country and am excited to be starting my first year at Elizabethtown College. I am majoring in early childhood education. I am hoping to learn a lot in this course to help me understand more of human behaviors. Understanding these perspectives will hopefully, lead me to preform better in my future in the classroom. I chose to take this class because I really enjoyed my high school psychology class. Which leads me to my next point that I do, have a background in AP Psychology, where I received a 4 on the exam. When I hear the word “psychology” I think of the behavior and how people work mentally…why we do, what we do. The three topics that I think sound interesting are “Theory of Intelligence”, the studies of the brain, and personality discussions. These interest me because you never thoroughly think of the way peoples mind work, or why we behave the way that we do. To be able to study the scientific reasoning behind people and their intelligence, personality, and the brain that controls it all excites me. My question that I hope to be answered by the end of this course is how this all ties into education and how can I use this course to understand the perspectives of children in the classroom. I am looking forward to the rest of the semester.