--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.

--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.

--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.

--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.

--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.

--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.