--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.

--Original published at Taylor'sEtownCollegeBlog

I chose to watch the mini Myth about changing lanes while driving. All this time, I thought that if you stayed in one lane then you will ultimately get to a place faster than if you were to change lanes.  After watching this short clip I did notice however some things that were positive about the experiment and some things that were negative about the experiment.

The positive things about the experiment were that as a group, “The Myth Busters” collectively came up with scientific questions that they could then use to form a hypothesis.  They also had a solid hypothesis about what they expected to occur through testing the experiment.  Along with the positive things come the negative things that were evident throughout the experiment.

The negatives of the experiment were that there were some controls that were not actually controlled. For example, each car could go different speeds. This meaning that at one point, one car could be speeding and going over the speed limit while the other was following the speed limit. There were also other parts of the experiment that did not follow the steps of the scientific process.

These steps include the analysis of the data, review of the data by peers, and for a theory to be built.  Because I viewed a shortened version of the actual episode, this could be the reason that I did not witness these steps.  Another negative to the experiment was that the other drivers on the road could not be controlled. Therefore, the two test drivers were at variation of the other drivers of the road. This could be improved by using a simulation instead of actual people driving on the road.  This way the other variables could be controlled by the computer.  Also, the way that the drivers was not shared, but however they were selected could have also impacted the way that the experiment was completed.  If the drivers were not selected at random, then a form of bias could have been used in selecting who would drive what car. The drivers should have been selected at random so that there could not be any type of bias when it came to who would drive the cars.

~Taylor

--Original published at Rachelsblog

I chose to watch the Mythbusters episode about traffic and if changing lanes gets you to your destination faster. I’ve always believed that changing lanes does get you to your destination faster than staying in one lane. After watching this video, I see that is not the case.

The method used in the episode was to put two cars on the highway during rush hour and while one car stays in the same lane the entire time, the other car weaves through traffic. I support this method and find it to be the best way to test if it this myth is actually true. Although, one weakness I found in the method was they used a very small car to weave, which makes it easier to do. Not everyone has the smallest cars, so while one person with a small car can weave their way through traffic, then the myth may be true for them. If another person tried to do this with a big car that doesn’t have the advantage of being able to weave as easily as the small car, then the myth may not be as true for them.

One way they can change their method to fully test their method is to have more than two cars on the road going through the experiment. They should test it with cars of different sizes. They also should test this experiment in different types of traffic. This myth may be true on a 4 lane highway because there is more room to merge, but is it the same for a 2 lane? Making these changes to the method may help to find a more true answer to the myth.

--Original published at jennacampanellipsych

For this first impression I chose to critique a Mythbusters video, Cell phone vs Drunk driving. In this video they try to find out which is really more dangerous- talking on the cell phone while drinking or driving under the influence of alcohol. They decided to test this by doing three trials in a car with a driving instructor. They did these trials in a parking lot and not on a road, which was one of the strengths. Doing this made it not dangerous for any other drivers. First they drove through the course without the cellphone or alcohol. I thought this was a strength because they got to get used to the tasks they would be doing without any distractions. Next, they did a trial while on a cellphone call. They had another person on the other side of the phone giving them things to repeat back to them and asking questions. I thought that the way they went about this trial was a weakness. It was not realistic to be doing that on the phone, even though phone calls are distracting while driving. The last trial they did was driving under the influence. They drank then got behind the wheel. The problem with this is everyone reacts to alcohol differently, so you can not make a broad assumption based on three people’s reactions to it. They should of had a bigger test group for all of this so they could of seen all sorts of different people’s reactions before saying one thing is worse than the other. Overall, I think it was creative way to try this and it did show a lot about how people react while driving under the influence and on the phone, but you can not infer that this is the 100% truth based on just this experiment.

--Original published at HuntersCollegeBlog

One topic in psychology that I find fascinating, is why people react the way that they do to certain things. Why does ice cream make little kids happy? Why are some people terrified of planes? Not only how they feel, but how does their body react when they see something they love, vs. something they fear. I want to further research how people respond differently to their fears, specifically, and why they respond in that way. A lot of people share the common fear of clowns, so I want to figure out how/why each person reacts the way that they do when they’re faced with their fears.

My research question would be how/why do people react differently to their fears. My hypothesis would be that some people may react a variety of ways, because each person has a different coping mechanism, or something they feel more comfortable around.  People who had a stuffed animal to hold onto when they were scared as a little kid, may still tend to want to hold onto something, because when they were little, that was a safe space.  Other people may run away, look away, or even go into a ball on the ground. On the health side of things, heart rates could spike, or sweating or nausea could occur. So what I want to know is why people react differently.

I would start testing my hypothesis by gathering people of all ages, who claim they are afraid of clowns. I would then bring them into a room, and ask them what started their fear of clowns. Depending on if a clown at a carnival was chasing them, or if they saw a clown on TV, could impact how they react. I would then ask them on a scale of 1-10 what their anxiety levels are at that given moment. Then, they would be taken into a room, backs facing the front of the room. There would be one person dressed up as a clown, and a clown on a TV screen. Then, each person would have to face both the real clown and the clown on TV two separate times. I would record how they reacted to each, whether one time it would be running away from the real clown, or just closing their eyes when they saw the one on the TV. I would also record how their anxiety levels changed.  I would take note of each individual’s reaction to each instance of the clown, and based on what started their fear of clowns, I could answer how they reacted, and why they reacted the way they did to the real and TV clown. By getting to the root cause, and seeing in person how they reacted, the fear could possibly go away with the correct help.

--Original published at Sydney’s Side

In the Mythbusters mini-myth, “Do Men Really Find Blondes More Attractive?” there are lots of room for error but there were many strengths that portrayed in the clip as well. In order to test the question, the researchers had to determine what all of their variables were. The independent variable was hair color and the dependent variable was the score they received after their date. It measured attractiveness on a scale of five, likability on a scale of five, and the percentage of men that would go out on a date again.

In the mini-myth, it is hard to determine attractiveness because not all people define it in the same way. But the Mythbusters did an excellent job by making sure the women had the same features, just different hair color. By giving each girl a wig and changing the hair color between rounds, it allowed for different men to see the same person, just with different hair. Additionally, keeping a time limit in the dates ensured that everyone has the same amount of time to get to know their date. If each date had different times some people may discover they do not like each other or they may learn they like each other a lot more than they would know in three minutes. After each date, the men rated the women on a score card which is a strength because they all used the same scale. Finally, the men did not know the real reason they were there. If they had known they were doing an experiment on blondes, it may have made them more susceptible to rate blondes higher on the score card.

On the other hand, since attractiveness is up for interpretation it is difficult to fully get rid of bias. Some men prefer different hair colors and if there are not enough trials of the study outliers may stand out more than others. In order to fix this, have more trials because when there are more people, there is less room for outliers. Additionally, wigs are different from real hair because they make the head look bigger. If there had been more time for this study, the women could have had their hair dyed and styled the same way every time. The women that participated could also act differently toward the men that come to their tables. Perhaps they became tired from repeated dates or they have their own bias toward the men which could affect their likability. In order to fix this, the women could be given intermediate breaks as well go through a training to eliminate their own bias. Attractiveness is difficult to define, therefore the entire experiment is based on the opinions of different men. Once again, having more trials would help to gather a consensus in order to get rid of some outliers. Finally, the women could have changed clothes between rounds which could also affect the way the men thought of their attractiveness. To eliminate this, they could be kept in the same wardrobe throughout all of the experiments.