All Studies - IB Psych SL

Aharony & Zion (2018)

Overview: models of memory (working memory model); effects of technology on cognition.

1. Aim: To explore whether distractions such as WhatsApp text messages affect pupils’ working memory.

2. Method: Experimental study, Convenience sampling

3. Participants: 64 students - 24 male, 40 female, aged 12-17

4. Procedure: Participants performed 3 subsets of working memory index tests, digit recall, series letter, and math, while being distracted by WhatsApp messages. Control & Experiment Group were given a questionnaire at the end.

5. Results: Experimental Group had lower scores than Control Group, messages decreased working memory abilities. No significant difference between males and females.

6. Ethics: None to report, approved by the Ethics Committee.

7. Strengths: Male and female participants, included wide age range (minors), high ecological validity.

8. Limitations: Criteria for Participants - Hebrew is their mother tongue, they do not have cognitive or mental diagnoses, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorders or mental disorders, and they do not have physical disabilities, such as hearing or vision impairments.

Allport & Postman (1947)

Overview:  Social cognitive theory; schema theory; effects of stereotypes; biases in thinking and decision making (confirmation bias); models of thinking and decision-making (System 1); theories of prejudice and discrimination (social cognitive theory)

1. Aim: To determine if schemas of racial stereotypes will affect the recall of participant's memory.

2. Method: Experiment

3. Participants: Black and White American

4. Procedure: Participants were shown a picture of a well-dressed black man and a poorly dressed white man holding a razor, White participants performed serial reproduction with other White participants, Black participants performed serial reproduction with other Black participants, White participants: After a few retellings, the story changed so that the black man was the aggressor and holding the razor, Black participants: Recalled a more correct observation

5. Results: The White participants’ memory of the picture changed because it was heavily influenced by the prejudice in the 40's, where black men were heavily stereotyped against.

6. Ethics: Experiment demonstrates a racist schema.

7. Strengths: Easily replicated and has been replicated to similar findings, the study reflects what was happening in real-life at the time.

8. Limitations: Lacks ecological validity, old, results may be different in present day.

Bandura (1961) (Bobo Doll)

Overview: Social cognitive theory, enculturation (gender roles), ethics (protection from undue stress/harm)

1. Aim: To investigate the effect of children's exposure to an aggressive model.

2. Method: Experiment

3. Participants: 72 children, mean age of 4.

4. Procedure: Children matched on pre-existing aggressiveness that was rated on a 5 point scale. Split into 8 experimental groups and a control group of 24. Half of the groups saw aggressive model. Then split again into same/opposite sex model.

5. Results: Children who observed the aggressive model gave more aggressive responses than children who observed non-aggressive model.
   Girls in aggressive condition showed physical aggression if they observed the male model but verbal when observing the female.
   Boys were more physically aggressive than girls.

6. Ethics: Children may have been distressed by the aggressive behaviour. Couldn't withdraw as did not know they were in experiment. No debrief to overcome issues.

7. Strengths: Large Sample, High ecological validity as done in real life situation.

8. Limitations: Participants were selected because their parents worked at Stanford, the location of the study, may not be representative with highly educated parents. Lacks mundane realism as children were put in unlikely situations.

Baumgartner et al (2008)

Overview:  Hormones and behavior (oxytocin), brain imaging techniques (fMRI), human relationships (biological factors influencing personal relationships)

1. Aim: To investigate the role of oxytocin following breaches of trust.

2. Method: Experiment

3. Participants: 49

4. Procedure: They received either oxytocin or a placebo via a nasal spray. Participants were then told to act as investors in several rounds of a trust game with different trustees. They received either oxytocin or a placebo via a nasal spray. Participants were then told to act as investors in several rounds of a trust game with different trustees. In a second condition, they were told that they were going to play a "risk game" with a computer, instead of with another human being. They received either oxytocin or a placebo via a nasal

   spray. Participants were then told to act as investors in several rounds of a trust game with different trustees.

   In a second condition, they were told that they were going to play a "risk game" with a computer, instead of

   with another human being.

5. Results: Participants in the placebo group were likely to show less trust after feedback on betrayal. They invested less. Participants in the oxytocin group continued to invest at similar rates after receiving feedback on a breach of trust.

6. Ethics: None

7. Strengths: Oxytocin could explain why people are able to restore trust and forgive in long-term relationships

8. Limitations: Scanner research is merely mapping brain activity but nothing definite can be said about what it really means at this point in science. Giving oxytocin like this in an experiment may not reflect natural physiological processes. The function of oxytocin is very complex and it is too simplistic to say that it is "the trust hormone*

9. Can be used for

• Research methods used in the biological approach.

• Techniques for studying the brain and behavior.

• Functions of hormones in human behavior.

• The study may also be used in the human relationships unit:

• To what extent do biological factors influence human relationships?

Becker et al. (2002)

Overview: Etiologies of abnormal behavior (anorexia), prevalence of a disorder (anorexia), research methods used to study abnormal behavior (natural experiment), the role of globalization on behavior & identity.

1. Aim: To investigate effect of prolonged exposure of TV on attitudes to eating and eating behaviors in Fijian adolescent girls.

2. Method: Natural Experiment

3. Participants: Adolescent girls from Fiji. Independent groups design. 1st sample: 63 girls in 1995 several weeks before TV came in. 2nd sample: different set of 65 girls studied in 1998.
   Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods.

4. Procedure: Naturalistic experiment as introduction on TV was natural. Used a prospective multi wave cross sectional design

5. Results: Percentage of those with high EAT-26 score increased by 16.5%. Proportion of sample that used vomiting to lose weight increased by 11.3% from 0%. 77% stated TV influenced their body image. 40% justified desire to eat less or lose weight as a means of improving career or becoming more useful at home. Identifying with role models on TV changed body image in the period of the study. Cultural values about dieting/weight were changing between the girls.

6. Ethics: Undue stress to girls - increased eating disorders and desire to lose weight.

7. Strengths: Girls and parents gave consent, reliable procedures, same EAT-26 done by everybody = standardized procedure application, modeling in media has a negative impact on body images

8. Limitations: Decrease validity, the EAT-26 had mixed results, BMI didn't change, not generalisable, only fijian girls with the same culture, reductionists: doesn't look at genes or impact of environment, cross-cultural: used 2 different groups in both years, none of the girls had cases of bulimia nervosa = weren't able to diagnose.

Berry (1967)

Overview: Conformity, cultural dimensions (individualism/collectivism), research methods in sociocultural approach (experiment)

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Passamonti et al (2012)

Overview:

1. Aim: To investigate the effect of serotonin levels on activation of PFC and amygdala.

2. Method: True/Lab Experiment, Repeated Measures

3. Participants: Healthy volunteers (Volunteer Sampling)

4. Procedure: On the serotonin depletion day, participants were given a mixture of amino acids that lacked tryptophan, the building block for serotonin. On the placebo (control) day, they were given the same mixture but with a normal amount of tryptophan. The researchers then scanned the volunteers' brains using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as they viewed faces with angry, sad and neutral expressions. Using the fMRI, they were able to measure how different brain regions reacted and communicated with one another when the volunteers viewed angry faces, as opposed to sad or neutral faces. Researchers also used a questionnaire to determine which of the participants had a natural tendency to behave aggressively

5. Results: Low brain serotonin made communications between the amygdala (which generates emotion) and the frontal lobes weaker compared to those present under normal levels of serotonin. In individuals with a natural tendency to aggression, the result was especially pronounced. When serotonin levels are low, it may be more difficult for the prefrontal cortex to control emotional responses to anger that are generated within the amygdala.

6. Ethics: Some members of the population, including children, claustrophobic people, obese people and people with metal implants cannot have fMRI scans, which limits the generalizability. Whenever participants' brain chemistry is altered, it is crucial that experimenters take every step to inform and ensure participants of their physical and emotional safety. All researchers conducting studies within the field of psychological research are expected to consider ethical guidelines

7. Strengths: Double-blind procedure: researchers and the participants did not know who got the altered drink or the placebo. Reduces research bias

8. Limitations: The artificial environment of the laboratory and fMRI machine can confound the results.

Feinstein et al (2011)

Overview:

1. Aim: Investigate the role of amygdala in fear processing

2. Method: Case Study

3. Participants: SM

4. Procedure: Case study of SM, a woman with genetic condition that caused damage to amygdalae. The patient was asked to record diary and was presented with variety of situations, that many people would feel fear (visit in haunted house, watching horrors, going to a pet store and touching spiders and snakes). SM was also asked to fill the questionnaires about different aspects of fear (fear of death, speaking in public). Compared to a control group of healthy participants.

5. Results: SM showed no fear response to horror movies, to dangerous animals or to the haunted house, reported not feeling any fear. Instead she felt excited and intrigued. amygdala has an important role in the fear response, recognition and experiencing fear. Damage to the amygdala results in being unable to experience fear.

6. Ethics: Exposure to dangerous situations

7. Strengths: Case study, in depth investigation, anonymity (confidentiality), method triangulation (questionnaires, films, experiences)

8. Limitations: Case study cannot be replicated, findings may not be applicable to others

Luby et al (2013)

Overview:

1. Aim: To determine whether poverty experienced in early childhood impacts brain development at school age.

2. Method: Observational Study

3. Participants: 145 right-handed pre-schoolers recruited from a large sample.

4. Procedure: The children were cognitively and socially assessed annually for three to six years. The support or hostility of their caregiver was noted and stressful life experiences were also measured. They then underwent two MRI scans.

5. Results: Poverty was associated with less white and grey brain matter and with smaller amygdala and hippocampus volumes. Whether the caregiver was supportive or hostile mediated the effects of poverty on both hippocampi. Stressful life events affected the volume of the left hippocampus only. The exposure to poverty in early childhood impacts brain development at school age.

6. Ethics: Participants were exposed to hostile, stressful environments for long periods of time.

7. Strengths: Method triangulation: increases internal validity
   researchers can check behavioral, cognitive, and social measures against MRI results

8. Limitations: Not exact; prone to subjective interpretation
   small sample size: hard to generalize; doesn't explain how poverty effects non-depressed children

Radke et al (2015)

Overview:

1. Aim: Investigated the relationships between perceiving a social threat, testosterone and the amygdala.

2. Method: Laboratory Experiment, fMRI

3. Participants: 54 healthy females.

4. Procedure: Half of the participants were given a small dose of testosterone and the other half were given a placebo (manipulate testosterone). While in an fMRI scanner participants were shown pictures of faces, one at a time, that were either angry or happy. For each face that appeared on the screen participants have to "avoid" or "approach the face. They are told by the researcher which of these actions they must follow. As they have to lie perfectly still in the fMRI they avoid/approach the face by moving a joystick with their hand. So if they are told to approach- the stick will make the face appear larger as though it is coming towards them. If they are told to avoid- the face will become smaller as though it is moving further away. The motivation factor was the following of the researcher's instructions (avoid or approach) While in the scanner the activity of the participants amygdala and prefrontal cortices were measured.

5. Results: Group with testosterone had more activation in their amygdala when they were approaching angry faces (when they were told to do so) than when they approached happy faces.
   There was not a significant difference in the activation of the prefrontal cortex across groups. Approaching angry faces + more testosterone = increased amygdala activation

6. Ethics: None

7. Strengths: High Variable control

8. Limitations: 1) Ecological Validity: Not a real-life social threat
   2) Operationalized Definition of social threat (could also be a threatening email and not just a face)

Cornwell

Overview:

1. Aim: Investigate the relationship between vision, smell and mate preference. To see if androstadienone would affect what types of faces females found attractive in men

2. Method: Correlational Study

3. Participants: 56 male and 56 female between the ages of 17 and 26

4. Procedure: Asked to rate the pleasantness of different pheromones. Asked to rate faces based on their attractiveness

5. Results: Pheromones may affect attraction, as attraction to sex-typical traits is correlated with attraction to sex-typical pheromones. pheromones may signal healthiness to potential mates

6. Ethics: -

7. Strengths: -

8. Limitations: Not very ecologically valid and reliable in real world scenarios because the task is highly abnormal and unlikely to occur in daily life. The women only participates in a single condition, there is a high likelihood of extraneous variables such as personal preference, or period of menstruation that could have affected the results since women are more likely to prefer either masculinized of feminized faces during different stages of their menstrual cycle. Whilst this study does offer a greater understanding of the influence of androstadionone an attraction in heterosexual women, this study does not explore whether the result is the same for same-sex relationships.

Meyer-Lindenberg et al 2008

Overview:

1. Aim: To see how differences in MAOA gene (high expression vs. low expression) affects brain activity when exposed to threat

2. Method:

3. Participants: 142 participants, High or low variant of MAOA gene (MAOA-H or MAOA-L)

4. Procedure: They gathered 142 participants and split them into two groups - one group had the high variant of the MAOA gene (MAOA-H) while the other expressed the lower variant (MAOA-L), the type correlated with aggressive behavior. The participants were put into fMRI machines and were shown angry or fearful faces, and their brain scans were compared.

5. Results: When exposed to emotional stimuli (fearful faces), activity in amygdala was significantly higher in MAOA-L participants. MAOA-L participants also had less grey matter volume in amygdalae. Results showed that those with the low expressing variant of the gene had significantly increased activity in their amygdala and reduced activity in their ventromedial prefrontal cortex. It was therefore concluded that the MAOA-L gene, not producing enough of the mono-amine oxidase A enzyme that breaks down neurotransmitters, leads to reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, an area in the brain responsible for regulating impulsive behaviour. When someone is not able to control their impulses, it can lead to aggressive outbursts, which means that if an individual is in a socially threatening situation (like the partitions were with the angrier images), they may not be able to regulate their stress response triggered by the amygdala's reactivity towards the threat. This increases emotional levels and therefore increases the chances of a highly emotional reaction to a threat they wouldn't be able to think through and regulate, resulting in antisocial behaviors, such as aggression.

6. Ethics: -

7. Strengths: -

8. Limitations: -

Baker

Overview:

1. Aim: To determine if antisocial behavior was a result of heritability or environment

2. Method: Twins - personalities, behaviors and social skills tested via questions from kids, caregivers and teachers. Questions measure level of antisocial behavior. Results analyzed and compared fraternal and identical twins.

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results: Antisocial behavior was half from genetics and half from environmental factors. Regardless of measure, heritability was always around 50%.

6. Ethics: -

7. Strengths: Triangulation - results from kids, caregivers and teachers were combined, reducing individual bias.

8. Limitations: Confounding variable - fraternal twins are treated more like siblings compared to identical twins.

Feder

Overview:

1. Aim: Investigate the effectiveness of ketamine on reducing the symptoms of PTSD/depression

2. Method: Experiment

3. Participants: -

4. Procedure: Participants diagnosed with PTSD were given ketamine or another antidepressant (2 weeks apart (repeated measures)). Their symptoms of PTSD and depression were measured before and after the treatment using a questionnaire. Randomized order (preventing order effect) and double blind procedure (to prevent researcher bias).

5. Results: Ketamine reduced symptoms drastically compared to the other drug (was more effective in reducing PTSD symptoms). Ketamine is an effective anti-PTSD drug; blocking glutamate receptors may be an effective treatment for depression and PTSD (because ketamine is the antagonist for glutamate)

6. Ethics: -

7. Strengths: Drugs were given in a random order.

8. Limitations: Ketamine is a very strong drug, thus it shouldn't be used in milder cases of depression. The results are not applicable to all people affected by this disorder. The drug should not be promoted as a 'magic cure' - ketamine is addictive, so its use might be harmful in a long-term.

Peterson & Peterson

Overview:

1. Aim: To test true duration of STM

2. Method: Laboratory Experiment

3. Participants: 24 individuals

4. Procedure: Participants asked to recall a trigram/followed by stating a heard 3-digit number/counting back in 3s and 4s/in a sequence.

5. Results: Longer counted back from, less able to accurately recall the trigram after 3 seconds - recalled over 80% after 18 seconds - recalled less than 10%. Information in our STM fades rapidly and only 10% could be recalled after 18 sec

6. Ethics: -

7. Strengths: Study had good controls, used fixed timings for participants to count back from used standardized procedures to make sure all participants experiences same process study is scientific, can be replicated

8. Limitations: Lacked mundane realism as it is not how we would typically use our memory r everyday

Robbins Bradsford & Johnson

Overview:

1. Aim: To investigate the effect of context on the comprehension and memory of an unfamiliar passage.

2. Method: Experiment

3. Participants: 50 male + female high schoolers --> divided into 4 groups.

4. Procedure: Participants heard a tape-recorded passage and were required to recall it as accurately as they could, writing down as many ideas as possible

5. Results: The passage contained 14 idea units in total. Context before had the highest average ideas recalled (8) and no context (1) and context after had the lowest with 3.6 ideas recalled on average. Can be explained by schema theory: the full context picture creates a mental representation which then influences the way information is encoded in memory. Idea units encountered in the passage are linked with the schema and in this way, coding is enhanced

6. Ethics:-

7. Strengths:-

8. Limitations:-

Kahneman & Tversky

Overview:

1. Aim: To investigate the effect of anchoring on the estimate of a value from mathematics problem.

2. Method:

3. Participants: High school students

4. Procedure:

5. Results: People make estimates by starting from an initial value that is adjusted to yield the final answer.

6. Ethics:-

7. Strengths: Provides evidence for how reliance on heuristics and the occurrences of biases when System 1 thinking is used by humans simple experiment that is easily replicated, allowing us to establish the reliability of the results highly controlled -> high internal validity.

8. Limitations: Situation is very artificial, questionable of the extent the findings can be applied, researchers used the median to report the data which diminishes the influence of outliers on the results

Loftus & Palmer

Overview:

1. Aim: To investigate how information supplied after an event (in the form of a leading question) influences an eyewitness' memory for that event.

2. Method: 45 students from the University of Washington.

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Buchanan and Lovallo

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Stone

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Park & Rothbart

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Barry

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Berry

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Lyons-Padilla

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Stone

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Draginski (2004)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Drury et al. (2009)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Harris & Fiske (2006)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Hilliard & Liben (2010)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Milner (1966)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Corkin (1997)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Knoblock-Westerwick et al. (2015)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

LeVay (1991)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Maguire et al. (2000)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Miranda & Matheny (2000)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Newcomer et al. (1999)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Novotny & Polanksy (2011)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Payne et al. (2001)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Rogers & Kesner (2003)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Sapolsky (1990- 2005)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Sharot (2007)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Sherif et al (1954)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Steele & Aronson (1995)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations:

Wedekind (1995)

Overview:

1. Aim:

2. Method:

3. Participants:

4. Procedure:

5. Results:

6. Ethics:

7. Strengths:

8. Limitations: