Chapter 1 – First Impression Post: Do Beer Goggles Really Exist?

--Original published at Kaity Takes on Psychology

The popular TV series “MythBusters” is known for designing tests to determine whether or not a myth can be plausible or debunked. The hypothesis for this particular experiment was whether or not drunkenness has a role in people’s perception of the attractiveness of others. The group had three participants undergoing the transition between sober, tipsy, and drunk. Their objective was to rate photos of strangers on a scale from one to ten, and later analyze the scores of each participant.

The three participants in the experiment (being the independent variables, as they altered their own perceptions through the consumption of alcohol) found themselves rating their samples as more attractive while drunk. Though the concept of beer goggles was decided to be plausible, there were several lurking variables in the experiment. There were only three participants, resulting in a small pool of data to analyze. Provided with a larger sample of participants, the experiment could have yielded varying results. Likewise, the selection of photos the participants rated consisted of different people each time. Though the folks in the photos were said to be aligned with the attractiveness of the people in the previous pictures, there still remains the issue of personal preference from the participants. The female participant even asks if the people in the second batch of photos are less attractive than the first. There is not a clear-cut solution to this issue, unless the photos used in the experiment were the same each time they rated them

There are several other issues with way the experiment is designed. The participants were all white and cisgendered, and likely have similar cultural values regarding looks. If “MythBusters” had implemented diversity among the participants in this experiment, the results would have provided a more fair set of data and removed the element of undercoverage. Additionally, by including two data sets from heterosexual males and one from a straight female, the experiment lacks perspective from the LGBT community. The “beer goggles” were not tested to see if they improve the attractiveness of all people, as they only comment on the appearance of their opposite gender. If they included photos of both genders, they could assess that as well.

Using a one to ten rating system on the photos allowed the three participants to use their own judgement while measuring the attractiveness of the person in the photo. As a result, each person had their own set scale on standards of beauty from the start. There was not a solid definition of attractiveness defined prior to the experiment and thus forced the majority of the process to be based on opinion. Walking into the experiment knowing the objective could have influenced them to rate the final group higher than the previous batches.

Another crucial flaw in the experiment is each person metabolizes and reacts to alcohol differently. It was clear that the female participant was more drunk than her male counterparts by the third round of rating photos, as she did not remember her scores from the previous times. The results were relatively unclear, yet the participant with the best data sample to prove the concept of beer goggles automatically claimed that the myth was plausible. The other two did not seem sold on the idea, but still went along with the first person’s analysis of the data.

In conclusion, the experiment was poorly designed, despite a reasonable hypothesis. Confirming the existence of beer goggles requires a larger pool of data, repeatable results, and the use of the same photos each time. They could have spaced the test out over the course of three sessions instead of doing it consecutively to ensure the results were fair. This experiment was created based upon response bias, and will naturally yield faulty data. There was a clear increase in the three samples by the last test, yet the experiment relied too heavily on opinion for the testing to be a fair assessment of all inebriated people.

Chapter 1- Research Methods

--Original published at Jill Distler's Psychology Blog

Does weaving through traffic actually get you to your destination faster?

In this short clip where MythBusters’ Grant, Kari, and Tory put their driving skills to the test during rush hour, many elements of the scientific method were put to the test. Immediately in the segment of the episode, they began to discuss their topic of interest: traffic’s affect on arriving at a destination. Tory described his method of sticking to one lane, and Grant suggested that he feels changing lanes is a more efficient way to drive on populated roads. Although they did not officially state a hypothesis, they chose to test their question using two identical cars, a destination, and a time of day when they knew the route to their desired location would be crowded: morning rush hour. I believe that their experiment had been thoughtfully planned, but I think there were a few flaws in the original experiment. In the introduction, Grant specifically said he changes lanes while driving “all the time”, but in the execution, he was the passenger to Kari’s driving, even though she seemed to be the outlier in the conversation. I also think that if Kari was given a passenger, then Tory should also have had one, because the experiment was not completed in the same fashion. There were also only two vehicles, doubling that number would have produced more liable results because the road conditions wouldn’t be the same on another day, and only using two cars couldn’t have possibly produced enough data. Overall the experiment has always been one of my most favorite to be executed by MythBusters, but from the clip provided there is sadly, no way of telling how often the experiment was altered to develop a theory about whether or not changing lanes in traffic is a more efficient way of driving, but I will happily stick to my ways of staying in one lane while driving.

Chapter 1 First Impression Prompts – Research Methods

Regardless of which prompt you choose, please use the Tag “Research Methods” on your post. Remember that these first impression posts are designed to be conducted based on what you already know or believe to be true, so you don’t have to do any research before writing your post. Here are the prompts for Chapter 1:

Option 1

For this week’s discussion, I want you to design a research study about a topic you find interesting in psychology. You can choose any topic you would like as long as you relate it to human behavior or mental processes. In your post make sure to do the following:

List your research question
State your hypothesis (what you think the outcome would be and why)
Describe your procedure (what you would have participants do, how you would recruit participants)

Make your research idea something feasible that you could actually do as a student researcher. In other words, assume you have a fairly small budget and a limited amount of time. If you’re a psychology major, you will eventually conduct your own research projects, so this is great practice to start thinking about what you might want to do.

Option 2

Mythbusters is a popular TV show on the Discovery Channel which tests popular ideas using scientific methods. Select one of the mini-myths (short clips from the show) below and critique the methods used to test the myth. Remember, critique means list the strengths and the weaknesses. For each weakness, discuss why it is a problem and suggest a solution.

I look forward to seeing what you write!

Header image: CC by Flickr user Caitlinator

Chapter 1 Propmt

--Original published at Chey's Blog

I have always been interested in psychology. I intend to be an art therapist after I graduate. My research question is associated with that. Would a patient making art help to bring forth repressed memories more than talk therapy? My hypothesis is that both art and talk therapy would have relatively similar outcomes without one surpassing the other. I think that types of therapy work better depending on the individual, but I would like to find out if that is true or not. I would start by finding trauma patients. In that pool of patients I would have a random selection. I think that the outcome would be better if I had a random selection of those patients. I would then do four tests with each patient. I suppose I could do more tests, but I feel that four tests would provide me with a good amount of information to form a conclusion. Two of those tests would be with talk therapy and two of them would be with art therapy. If these patients already have a psychologist I would have their psychologist conduct a session while I sat and observed. I think comfort levels of the patients would also help with collecting correct data. I would then observe the patient’s ability to recall repressed memories when using both types of therapy. Observing the behavior of the patients as well as how they respond when questioned about their memories would be the way that I collect my data. I would then record the results and come to my conclusion. Then I would have my work peer reviewed to insure that my data is correct.

Dose the Placebo Effect Work?

--Original published at David's Blog

Will the placebo effect work on patients with depression? The placebo effect is a well know psychological way of making people fell better or to help them quite a habit they can’t kick. What it basically is is a sugar pill given to patients and it has no effects or anything but there told it does. What then happens is the patient thinks the “drug” is helping them when actually it was there mind doing all the work. I believe if you give a sugar pill to someone who has depression and tell them it will get rid of there depression they will not suffer from symptoms of depression. This may work since this method deals with tricking the brain and depression deals with the brain as well so we may be able to trick peoples brains. To execute this procedure I will need to find people with depression and to find these participants I will put up flyers and post on blogs asking for help in a depression experiment. Once I have the participants I will separate them into two separate groups. Group one would be the control group where they wouldn’t get a sugar pill and after a week they would report any depression symptoms. Then group two would receive the sugar pill and exactly like group one, group two will record any depression symptoms they had after one week. After the data is collected I will then compare the two groups and see if theres any difference or change.

Research Methods

--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.

First Impression- Research Study

--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.

First Impressions Post: MythBusters

--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.

Chapter 1 First Impression Prompts – Research Methods

--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.

Chapter One First Impression Post- Research Methods

--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.