The Active/Passive Theme.

This is a theoretical debate from developmental theorists about whether or not children are passive and just receive environmental influences which help to shape them or are children active in learning and create their own pathway to knowledge. The active/passive debate also considered children’s sub-conscious choices which can have an influence on the environment they live in. An example would be a child who is being difficult can test the patience of their parents which in an effect has possible changes on their development because of how the parent’s long-term behaviour changes in receiving bad behaviour from the child. This can happen but the child is not actively trying to change his or her development. (Shaffer & Kipp 2010).

            Are children born with a blank slate in which experience gives them their personality? Or do we actively seek our own experiences? When looking at major theories in psychology it shows that many theories are passive or active but never both together. For example Freud`s theory of Psychosexual Development is passive but it includes both nature and nurture in the theory. Also Bandura`s Social Cognitive theory is active with just nurture and Erikson`s theory of Psychosocial Development is active with both nature and nurture included.

            I think that the active vs. passive debate is related in the fundamentals of the nature vs. nurture debate which is between genetics and environmental influences with which has the most affect on human development. This is because they both argue that children are either given something naturally or go out and seek it. Based upon the different ideas of active and passive, I believe that children are more active in their learning in society, as they decide what type of play they want and go out and get it. I do however think that children are also partly passive as they take what they are given by society, in particular from their parents. Also their sub-conscious will make decisions based upon how society affects them.

References:

Shaffer & Kipp (2010) Theories of Human Development. Development Psychology: Childhood & Adolescence. (p. 69). USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.  

Bilingual Children.

The definition of bilingual is to be able to talk and write fluently in two languages or more. Many people throughout the world will be able to do this, possibly due to where they live or where they grew up, or even due to an interest in a language. Children tend to be influenced by the environment they live in and this is where they can possibly become bilingual. Is it really that useful to be bilingual, even for a child? The answer I think is yes especially when children grow up into adults.

One study asked whether or not a baby raised in a bilingual home would be more open to new patterns of language-like stimulation. The results showed that the child will be more open to stimulation through language than children raised in a monolinguals home. (Kovacs & Mehler 2009). A child brought up in a home that uses both languages equally can fluently pick up both languages at the same speed as they would if there was only one language (Kovelman, Shalinsky, Berens, & Petitto 2008). I think it is good that individuals can learn to be bilingual from a young age as it helps diversity and as shown above helps increase their openness to learning.

Becoming bilingual from a young age can be easier than learning two languages as an adult. This is because children have a greater capacity to learn at a young age, rather than when an individual becomes older. In most schools a second language is taught e.g. French as part of the curriculum. This encourages children to learn different languages to use in the future e.g. visiting different countries or going into a career which requires work staff to be able to speak more than one language. According to American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) a child being bilingual can gain advantages such as being able to learn new word easily. Also it can give a child good listening skills, to separate different words and the ability to connect with other individuals.

I believe that children becoming bilingual can improve how easily a child can learn. Being able to speak more than two different languages gives an advantage by being able to connect with foreign people and understand different cultures. Children can be given an insight into a different country by learning the language and also increase their ability to learn that will help them achieve success academically in the future.

 

References:

http://www.asha.org/about/news/tipsheets/bilingual.htm

Kovacs, A., & Mehler, J. (2009). Cognitive gains in 7 month-old bilingual infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (16), 6556-6560.

Kovelman, L., Shalinsky, M. H., Berens, M. S., & Petitto, L. (2008). Shining new light on the       brains “bilingual signature”: A functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy investigation    of semantic processing. NeuroImage, 39(3), 1457-1471. 

Free Will.

Free will could be defined as an individual’s ability to decide for themselves and to not be controlled by another individual. According to the British Psychological Association (BPS) it is unethical to take away an individual’s feeling of free will. For example an individual participating in an experiment should feel at any time they can leave the experiment without any consequence brought towards them. Is it really unethical to take away free will? I think that forcing an individual physically to stay in experiment e.g. Stanford Prison Experiment is unethical as it can possibly cause harm to an individual. But I think that if a participant is given prompts to stay, as long as this is taken into account in the research results as factor that could have some effect, that this could show more research into how free will can change people’s behaviour.

            Research conducted by Davide Rigoni (2011) under the BPS found that undermining the belief that an individual has free will can change how their brain prepares its self for voluntary movement. The experiment was replicated from a previous one by Benjamin Libet`s classic task in the 1980s. The participants were randomly given passage to read which either debunked the sense of free will or a passage that didn’t contain any mention of free will. Participants were then required to watch a clock face and then make a voluntary movement by pressing a button when they have chosen a time of their own choice. While the participant was doing this their brains electrical activity was recorded from electrodes positioned on their scalp. The results showed that the brain already prepares to move the hand before a decision has been made. Free will therefore didn’t apply to the participant’s decision.

            According Rigoni`s study (2011) free will is a illusion. Another part of the results showed that brain activity was slower in preparing for motor movement in participants who had read the debunking passage on free will. This affect was more prominent in participants who had less belief in free will than other participants. The study concluded that the beliefs an individual has in free will can change how their brain processes movement and other motions. This creates the topic of whether or not actually free will exists and do we really have control over all our actions. I believe that we do have some free will but that most of our actions are natural which we don`t think about or reflexes that we don`t have control over.

           

Reference:

http://www.bps.org.uk/news/debunking-free-will-affects-brain

Personalities in population samples.

In experiments would it be more reliable if all the different types of personalities were included in the study. This is via different individuals who have different personalities included in the sample of the population. First, types of different personalities would have to be defined. This is impossible as different opinions will always think differently to what has been defined. But if a general description of personalities were given, it may be possible. Personalities are described in the Big Five theory which uses human traits into five different categories. These include openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. An individual can be described by rating these categories e.g. they are very agreeable with others and so would score high in agreeableness.

            Giving different personalities in a study could possibly improve the reliability. This is because there is a bigger range of different individuals. This could be theorized to the population more easily. In different cultures individuals behave differently and this is why the Big Five theory of personality traits is criticised. The categories were created in English and so for non-English speaking individuals this prevented a proper understanding. One criticism focused upon the fact that an individual’s own natural thoughts and understanding couldn’t emerge if they did not understand what each of the categories mean (Greenfield 1997)

            Everyone is different and so will have different personalities. Even before birth, in the uterus babies behave in different ways. An individual’s personality is influenced by genetics. For example identical twins (They share the same genes) were found to have similar temperaments, even if they were brought up separately in different families (Buss & Plomin 1984). Different personalities will react differently in different situations. So should this be taken into consideration when conducting experiments?

            Often before or after an experiment a participant will be asked for demographics e.g. age, gender etc. These questionnaires can often ask an individual to describe themselves which is defined as self report data. Statements can also be listed in which an individual must say how alike or unlike a statement is when looking at themselves. Asking a participant for this kind of information can help a researcher see personality and any affects this could possibly have on the research results.

 

References:

Gleitman, H, Gross, J & Reisberg, D. (2010) Psychology (8^th ed.). London, UK: W.W    Norton & Company.

Bias influences on memory.

In biological terms there are different neural mechanisms that aid emotional memory. These mechanisms make it easier for individuals to form memories. In theory though when recalling memory, can memory be reliable and untouched from bias? The way in which an individual thinks about an emotional event determines what kind of memory it is. An individual may be naive in the fact they do not realise that they are paying close attention to certain aspects. This can leave out important ideas that blur the actual memory into something’s its not. The way in which an individual thinks determines their interpretation of memory and ultimately shapes the memory.

            An example of how memory is influenced is by Brewer & Treyens in 1981. Individuals spent a few minutes in a professor’s office and then left. Straight after the individuals were asked to describe the room they were just in. A third of people said they remembered seeing shelves which were full with books. However though there were no shelves containing any books in the professor’s office. This was concluded that the participants had `supplemented` a memory by using their knowledge that `normally` a professor would have shelves full of books (Brewer & Treyens 1981). This shows how the line between actual memory and common knowledge can be blurred. This in result can produce bias and false memories.

            Often in research experiments a researcher will ask a participant to recall something from memory. This can be from the individuals own past e.g. feelings or to remember details in a task they have just completed. Different cognitive influences can affect emotional memory. Emotional memory can not totally be reliable; as some aspects are remembered well; where as other aspects are neglected. The only way an individuals memory can be reliable would be if memory was captured like a video recorder. This would avoid bias from interpretation and selective memorisation. In conclusion memories can have errors occur and they shouldn’t be entirely relied on.

References:

Gleitman, H, Gross, J & Reisberg, D. (2010) Psychology (8^th ed.). London, UK: W.W    Norton & Company.

God.

This research experiment was carried out to understand the brain activity of individuals when they are having a mystical experience (sense of being in union with God). The participants were nuns who had their brain activity measured using an fMRI scanner. This was done when the nuns were united in a state with God. The title of the research paper is “Neural correlates of mystical experience in Carmelite nuns” by Beauregard and Paquette (2006).

            The media printed an article of this paper by The Telegraph with the title of “Nuns prove God is not figment of the mind”. This draws that a conclusion has been found that `proves` a theory. A theory can not be proved as there is never a proper procedure in which to prove a theory. In the original article the result showed that some regions of the brain `suggest` that mystical experiences are mediated. This was not suggested in the journal article that a finding had been proven. In the body of the article and in the title it claims that Nuns have proven that God exists through brain neural functions. In the actual research experiment it is not claimed that Gods existence has been proven but “neither does it confirm nor disconfirm the existence of God’ as said by Dr Beauregard.

            The Telegraphs newspaper article implies that ` Nuns prove God is not figment of the mind`. This brought a conclusion that was false in trying to create a controversial topic in which can be used as a headline. In the newspaper article it does not explain why the research was carried out but rather uses snippets of information that would fit a headline. However the article does not use complicated words which some of the population may find hard to understand. This allows the research to be portrayed for everyone to read with different levels of understanding and knowledge.

Pavlov`s Dogs.

Pavlov’s dog was an experiment conducted by Ivan Pavlov in 1927. The aim was to understand triggers in the form of secretion of saliva. Dogs were used as when they observe that food is present, their glands react that produce saliva. The experiment was formed on the concept of classical conditioning which Pavlov was first concentrating on studying the digestive process. Then it was noticed that the dogs would salivated whenever Pavlov’s assistants came into the room. Pavlov thought that this occurrence lead to something as salivation is a reflex and cannot be directly controlled without a stimulus. This was then understood as a physiological process that is an automatic response when food is present. It was suggested that the dogs had observed the assistants lab coats and associated them with receiving food. Pavlov then focused on how they learn these responses.

            Food was used as an unconditioned stimulus which aims to cause a natural automatic response. A metronome (constant ticking device) was the neutral stimulus. Then the process of the dogs hearing the ticking noise then the dogs would receive food. After repetition of this process it became clear that the dogs understood and associated hearing the ticking noise as a sign that they were going to get food. This was how the theory of classical conditioning was formed as a previously unrelated object can be associated with something when they both occur together.

  Ethics are covered for humans but not for animals. If this was conducted on humans rather than animals then ethical guidelines would be broken. As the dogs were fitted with tubes to the side of their faces, this would have caused them discomfort and stress. I personally don’t agree with using animals in experiments where discomfort or pain may occur to animals. This is because they have no way of saying no, which I think is unfair.

            Another argument made against this experiment was the fact that the findings were applied to humans. The findings were found from dogs not from humans, which raises questions of whether the findings can be applied. Human and dog physiology may be similar but they are different where anomalies occur.

References:

http://psychology.about.com/od/classicalconditioning/a/pavlovs-dogs.htm.

Being Sane in Insane Places.

This paper was written by D.L. Rosenhan (1973) in which an experiment was conducted to understand how individuals indentify the sane from the insane. How people perceive what they think is normal and what is abnormal. The experiment included putting eight psuedopatients into different psychiatric hospitals over an average of 19 days. These individuals are considered to have no mental illnesses. They were admitted as having the symptoms of schizophrenia and the hospital staff did not know they were stooges. Throughout the process the psudopatients would ask quite `pointed` questions regarding their treatment e.g. about what medicines they were receiving (Medicines were not swallowed). The answers to these questions were written down in front of other patients and staff members. Some patients within the hospitals expressed that they did not believe that the psuedopatients belonged in the hospital. Whereas the staff saw the recordation of answers as an another symptom of schizophrenia. The participants when asked how they were feeling would reply that they were fine and were no longer feeling any symptoms. This highlights the key aim of the research of how individuals cannot always distinguish the sane from the insane when they have conflicting evidence that goes against what the patient is admitted for.

            A critic of this experiment would be that the hospitals that the psuedopatients were admitted to were funded by Government. Money was spent on these individuals when they knew they didn’t need treatment from the hospitals. I think that this is a bit unfair for individuals to have to pay for this when no treatment was needed. The medicines they were given were not swallowed, which seems a waste again, when these medicines should have been used for treating actual individuals with mental health issues.

            Also the fact that these psuedopatients could have possibly taken a place in the hospital from a another patient that would of needed the treatment. However this experiment was conducted in 1973 where possibly ethical guidelines were different in viewing how important the research is compared to the cost of the research. I do think that this experiment could have been conducted better so that the research findings were more conclusive and that ethical the research won’t affect others not involved in the research.

References:

Rosenhan, D.L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250-258.

Stanford Prison Experiment.

The Stanford prison experiment was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo and a team of researchers. A sample of 24 college students were selected after they volunteered by responding to an ad which asked for volunteers to be part of a study of the psychological effects of prison life. The participants were all healthy males who were split into two groups by the toss of coin one side were prisoners and others were guards. Once a prison environment was set up the researchers could watch what happens to the participants.

                The prisoners were stripped and searched which would have been humiliating for them. Also they always had a heavy chain attached to their foot this could create feeling of oppressiveness in the environment they were in. The prisoners weren’t allowed to use their names but were given a number to be identified by. The guards were basically given free rein in what they felt was the best thing to do in keeping order in the prison. At first both sides didn’t take control of their roles but eventually guards enforced push-ups as a form of punishment. On the second day of the experiment the prisoners began to rebel and so the guards reacted by setting up a privilege cell. This cell was given to prisoners who were least involved in the rebellion. The rest of the prisoner`s were not given food for a period of time but could watch the privileged prisoner`s. Some were put into solitary confinement for longer than their own rules stated when the prison was first set up. By this stage the prisoners had most of their basic human rights removed. One prisoner began to suffer and went into uncontrollable rage or crying after 36 hours of the experiment, the researchers believed that he was faking it in order that he could be released. This shows how all the participants and the researchers had become immersed so quickly into their roles in the prison.

                Eventually the researchers and Zimbardo (1971) decided to end the experiment early due to how the situation had gotten out of control in how the participants were behaving. The first reason for this was because through watching the night-time recordings they learnt that the guards increased abuse to prisoners because they thought no one would be watching at that time. The second reason was because an individual came in to conduct interviews with the participants saw the state they were living in and how they were being treated, they spoke to the researchers in which they then realized how far the experiment had gone.

                Even though the APA in 1973 had ruled that no ethical guidelines were disregarded I believe that the experiment went too far as the participants were manipulated beyond what the experiments purpose was. The participants suffered emotional stress throughout the period they were there and were subjected to humiliation that they didn’t deserve as none of the participants had criminal convictions. The fact that the researchers let the guards intimidate and harass the prisoners I think is unfair and goes beyond what is expectable in a research experiment. I think that the researchers, guards and prisoner`s got sub merged into their roles and forgot exactly what they were doing. This I think lead to how the prisoners were treated as the people involved forgot that it wasn’t a real prison but an experiment. I therefore think that they should have ended the experiment much sooner than they did. Even though the participants had given consent to be part of the experiment I think that no one was prepared enough to know how people would go into their prison roles. Therefore an independent advisor should have overseen the experiment, not get immersed in it but should have stopped it when the prisoners were being harmed.

References:

Phillip G. Zimbardo. (1999-2011). The Stanford prison experiment. In SPE. Retrieved October. 20, 2011, from http://www.prisonexp.org/.

What makes a research finding important?

New research findings are found each day on different aspects throughout the world. Research is to establish and find new facts in order to reach conclusions. Research can help improve the lives of different people for example research into curing and preventing cancer.

Pavlov (1927) developed classical conditioning and Milgram (1961) discovered that individuals will obey more to figures of authority. These types of research I think could be defined as important research as they presented new information in understanding different behaviours. These cases did come at some ethical cost to the participants which can lead to the debate whether or not the research was important enough to push ethical boundaries. I think that maybe they did push the ethical boundaries such as Milgram`s experiment possibly caused emotional stress to participants but this research was important in understanding the aspects of obedience.

A new research finding can change what people already believe which will hold people’s attention to it. I think unless it is changing of what we already believe in some research findings won’t be important. This can mean that some research findings are published but aren’t actually known by the public as a whole. A good researcher should be familiar in the way in which good research is carried out. This determines the adequacy and the value of the findings Dennis Howitt and Duncan Cramer (2008). I think that is also important factor in how important a research finding is as the value of finding also means how important it will be.

Research findings can soon change as new research is found that conflicts with previous research findings. As research progresses new ways of testing different factors are used and so this changes how research is collected. Researchers all have different opinions and perspectives and so they will challenge other researchers work they may not agree with.  I think that this is good as without debate or challenging other psychologists findings research in psychology would not progress into reaching new conclusions. New theories can be created from this and I think that to make a research finding important it has to be debatable so the field can progress.

Research doesn’t have to back up an already existing theory with evidence to be classes as important research. I think that also important research should lead to new information in which new doors can be opened to be able to more research forward.

 

References:

Howitt. D & Cramer. D (2008). The role of research in psychology. 2^nd Ed Introduction to research methods in psychology. Pg 3. Essex. Pearson Education Limited.