Week 9 Blog, Option 1: The effects of Environment on Student Performance

For this week’s blog post, I am reflecting on the content presented in two videos.

-The first video I watched discussed how performance on a given task can be altered by the phenomenon of stereotype threat. Subjects aware of negative stereotypes tended to perform worse than others.

-The second video I watched discussed the Pygmallion effect, which is the power of positive expectations. It tracks a study done by a Harvard Psychologist, and a school principle. The study found that when teachers had higher expectations for a student, that student would perform better in class, and on tests.

-On a side note, the third video I was supposed to watch had copyright problems, so I looked up Jane Elliott’s Brown eyes/Blue Eyes experiment (which I presume is being discussed in this video, based on its title). Elliott’s famous experiment showed that the effects of unfair treatment (which can be likened to racism) lead to lower performance in students.

I can’t say that I’ve ever been exposed to stereotype threat by school faculty as far as my memory serves. In fact, I can’t say I ever really experienced negative stereotypes until middle school, where everyone turns into a horrible monster, and such negative stereotypes are a common place point of discussion. However, I was exposed to positive expectations in elementary school. I distinctly remember a time when my fifth grade mathematics teacher partitioned one, two, or three oreo cookies out to people, based on what she thought we deserved. Children who received more cookies were the ones she deemed the hardest workers. I was one of the ones who received three. I remember it being a huge ego booster, and something that motivated me a lot at the time. I wouldn’t be surprised if this event alone has significantly contributed to the shaping of my future academic career! While this incident cetainly had a positive and beneficial effect for me, I don’t believe it was entirely fair, and may have even been harmful to the students who only received one oreo cookie.

Based on the content of the videos, I believe that in their training, all teachers should be exposed to the results of studies like those presented in these videos. They should be made aware, and trained to avoid exposing students to negative stereotypes, and to treat all students equally (although this is not so much of a problem as it is now). Introducing students to negative stereotypes is absolutely not necessary, especially not at younger ages. If there is one thing that Jane Elliott’s study, and that the video over stereotype threat have shown, it’s that negative stereotypes, and negative expectations can really harm a student, and dampen what would otherwise be a positive learning experience. As the video on the Pygmallion effect suggests, positive expectations can have a truly powerful effect on students! It should be a teacher’s job to not display positive expectations, or seemingly have “favorite students,” as this would create an unfair disparity between those students’ performance, and the rest of the class’ performance. Instead, teachers should be gently reassuring, and should empower all students as evenly as possible so as to foster a learning environment where students truly feel as if they are on equal footing. However, a little positive expectations for those who need it most wouldn’t hurt either! The power of positive suggestions should be used with caution by teachers, if used at all.

Week 7 Blog: Violent Videogames and Aggressive Behavior

By now we’ve all heard the accusation: Violent videogames lead to violent behavior. There is no better a place to observe this, than in the accusations the follow school shootings. From Columbine to Sandy Hook, the videogame choices of the shooters are always brought into play by those who report on the stories. But do violent video games really have any effect on the behavior of children?

Thus far, research and studies present mixed results. On one hand, research does suggest that violent videogames may make consumers increasingly more violent over time. One such article in Time magazine presents a pediatrics study based in Singapore that analyzes violent thought and behavior in children over time ^[1]. This study found that children who played more violent videogames per week than others were more likely to possess violent thoughts, tendencies, and fantasies based on responses to questionnaires. The author of this article additionally presents brain imaging studies which  show that children who play more violent videogames have a greater degree of repression of empathy than those who did not. Overall, this Time article comes across as sensationalist. It presents the results of the study in such a way that implies a complete understanding of the underlying mental processes of the children. To be fair, the article does include a legitimate counter argument (that being that a rise in popularity of violent videogames has not been matched by a rise in violent crime), and link to a study that claims the opposite of the pediatric study at the beginning of the article, although one should consider treating Time articles making such bold claims as this with caution.

On the other side of the spectrum, a study presented in a The Independent article suggests that violent videogames do not increase the incidence of violent behavior in children ^[2]. The study listed in this article involved two groups of people, one exposed to a violent version of a videogame, and the other exposed to a non-violent video game. Within each group, the difficulty of learning the videogame controls was manipulated for. The study found that it was the difficulty of the videogame, and not the level of violence that predicted violent behavior in the participants. Upon explaining the methods of the study, the results and claim made by this article seem far less impressive and somewhat inaccurate. The article also acknowledges that the study does not discount the effects of violent content on participants.

It would seem that there are too many confounding variables at hand to truly draw any sort of causal relationship between exposure to violent videogames, and aggressive behavior. While there are certain pieces of evidence in both of this articles that make convincing arguments, neither side presents a definitive conclusion. I personally believe that violent video games should not be banned. Consumption should of course be monitored, and children should be educated about the value of respecting and caring for others, but by no means should these videogames be banned. For some, I believe violent  videogames provide an outlet to an otherwise tame reality where children are not allowed to hit others. At the same time, as they mature the children might begin to realize the stark difference between virtual reality and real life, and confine their violent thoughts and tendencies to fantasy and videogames.

References:

[1]: Alice. “Violent Video Games: They May Make Kids Think in More Aggressive Ways.” Time. Time, 24 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. <http://time.com/34075/how-violent-video-games-change-kids-attitudes-about-aggression/&gt;

[2]: Vincent, James. “Violent Video Games Don’t Make You Aggressive – Difficult Games Do, Says New Study.” The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 08 Apr. 2014. Web. 22 Mar. 2015. <http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/violent-video-games-dont-make-you-aggressive–difficult-games-do-says-new-study-9246838.html&gt;.

Week 5 Blog: (TED talk) Loftus’ Studies on Memory

I felt quite a few emotions, some of them rather strong (think Amygdala!) after listening to this TED talk. For one, I was both outraged and saddened by the outcome of Steve Titus’ case. This case is nearly a perfect example of the saying “life is not fair.” I felt intrigued that Loftus’ research suggests that memory may be even more fragile than I had originally thought! This challenges my point of view on memory. While I have learned that memory could be faulty, and even false, I have always prided myself on being able to rely on my memory in most conventional and everyday scenarios. If there is one thing I will take away from her study, it’s that I should write more often! Lastly, I felt considerable anger at the fact that people wished to discount Loftus’ research due to their personal animosity, and were even so immature as to send her death threats, or resort to physical violence. I was both impressed, and elated by Loftus’ statement that a disturbing trend in America now involves “Scientists being sued for speaking out on matters of great controversy.” I personally like to think of this as Loftus sending a subtle message to her plaintiffs: Get the [expletive] over yourselves.

Loftus states that her research on memory implies that we can “plant memories and control behavior.” She then appropriately discusses the ethics of this consequence:

-We could possibly benefit from this relationship. By planting a false memory in someone, you could increase the likelihood that s/he performs a certain behavior that results in a positive outcome for them. As Loftus mentions, a parent or authority figure using this technique benevolently could potentially save a subject from a life of discomfort, pain, shame, or misery.

-This relationship could be very deleterious. For example, a man with sinister intentions may plant a false memory in order to manipulate his coworker to his own selfish advantages at the coworker’s expense. False memories can be traumatic, and influence us negatively as well.

In my opinion the planting of false memories should be treated the same as other viable yet ethically controversial procedures: it should be duly noted, and considered, but never strictly used, or strictly forbidden. In most cases, I would argue that planting false memories should be avoided, as there are simpler, better, and more applicable options out there depending on the situation. In the case of benefiting from implanted memories, there is almost always a method to guide someone towards success without needing to plant a false memory. This should be strived for without the need of relying on a technique that is not guaranteed to work anyway.

Week 4 Blog: (TED Talk) Miguel Nicolelis: Brain to Brain Communication has arrived

After I read through the titles of our options for this week’s blog, I knew instantly that I wanted to watch this talk about wordless speech as I’ve always been a sucker for fantasy, and the supernatural! Seeing “brain to brain communication,” immediately stuck out to me as the idea of telepathy! The idea of communicating to someone almost instantaneously (as if our brains were connected) has always been one of the neatest things I could imagine.

In this TED talk, Brazilian scientist and physicist Miguel Nicolelis begins by discussing the first kick of the 2014 FIFA world cup. The man who delivered the first kick was 29 year-old Juliano, a paraplegic, and “just by thinking,” he was able to physically move his legs, kick a soccer ball, and also feel it, as if the senses of his legs had returned. Nicolelis then describes the brain-machine interface, a technology that works by sensing the electrical signals in the brain, and transmitting them to a machine that is designed to perform a certain task. Additionally, an artificial skin that simulates the sense of touch is attached to machine’s surface which enables sensory feedback. This technology was developed and used for the 2014 FIFA world cup which allowed the paraplegic man to deliver the first kick of the cup. Nicolelis then discusses the history and accomplishments of his research which include: Monkeys learning to control an avatar arm (without moving any part of their own body), allowing humans to regain mobility through an exoskeleton, and even one lab rat sending a neurological cue to guide a second lab rat towards a reward.

I found the prospect of brain to brain communication to be the most fascinating! In a few decades, it may even become a world wide commodity. Nicolelis seems to imply that this is the direction in which his research has headed, and even cites a recent study by a European group that demonstrated a man to man communication across continents! I also thought the fact that this technology is non-invasive (and thus involves less risk, and discomfort for participants) to be very promising!

One strong point of Nicolelis’ talk was his ethos appeal. He came across as a very down to earth and hopeful man, who explained the process and science behind his studies in simple and consumable language for world wide audiences. I was honestly expecting Nicolelis to explain the limitations of his technology, and why this technology has not come to fruition in the past, although he did have a time constraint on his talk. Nicolelis especially struck me as a trustworthy man when he was able to answer questions after his talk demonstrating a thorough knowledge of his research.

I think one interesting study that could be done with this technology is a comparison of efficiency:

Hypothesis: Brain to brain communication devices allow faster transmission of ideas than simply talking over a phone to someone.
Independent Variable: placement into either the Brain Interface group (BI group), or into the Cell phone transmission group (CP group).
Dependent variable: The time it takes to complete a complex task.
Experimental Design: There will be two people for each of the groups: An encoder (the person transmitting the cues, either by BI, or CP), and the decoder (the person who is physically in a different room, and tasked with solving a puzzle). The encoder is responsible for sending messages to the decoder instructing him to perform many tasks back to back (such as inverting a red cup, switching the placements of two blocks, turning on 3 out of 5 lights, etc.). The BI decoder will receive messages through the technology designed by Nicolelis, whereas the CP decoder will simply be talking with the encoder and instructed on what to do next.
The idea is that the encoder will enter the room, and begin reading from a long list of instructions, and must communicate effectively to the decoder. It is expected that the BI decoder will be able to essentially “understand” the instructions at the same time that the encoder does, whereas the CP decoder will have to wait for the encoder to read, and then instruct.
Issues may include confidentiality, and risk of damage to participants through mechanical failure. In this case, all encoders and decoders will have access to an emergency power off button (as will test administrators in case participants are unable to push a button) should a risky or uncomfortable situation present itself.

Week 3 Blog: “You Are Not Special” Commencement Speech

As soon as I read the title of this video, I immediately thought the speech was going to involve the line “you are not special,” in a controversial, or shocking context followed by a really cliché and/or humorous closure. I was actually fairly impressed with how well put together the speech was. The speaker seamlessly transitioned from humorous asides, to serious and deep insight. I appreciate his use of actual numbers and statistics to hammer in his point.

What made the biggest impression upon me however was the overall tone of his speech. I was honestly expecting for the speaker to establish a rather grim and serious mood when he dropped the bomb about the graduating class not being special, only to later transition to a more hopeful tone. Instead, the speaker dropped the bomb in a very matter of fact way. He held his tone as he told us all that “you are not special,” and it seemed like he was telling us something negative that we already knew, and that it was okay. I liked that at the core of his message, he wasn’t negating the idea of “special,” but simply challenging an adolescent’s concept of “special.”

After having read about cognitive development of teenagers, I would daresay that the author of this speech took a page from a psychology textbook! Overall, I believe the author’s speech presented the message very effectively, and one reason for this was that he seemed to be appealing to the “personal fable,” or the belief that one has unique thoughts that have never been experienced by others. By directly challenging this preconception that the graduates may have once had, or currently had, the author causes them to think, and to reevaluate the way they view the world. The graduates may realize that perhaps they truly aren’t special, and maybe the author has gone through the same things they have. I believe that those in the audience who paid him mind had a core principle of their personality shaken. Not in a negative and destructive way, but certainly in an uncomfortable way which is exactly what the author was trying to accomplish.

Week 2 Blog: Topic #1

Research Question: Are people who live in more moderate climates (Group A) more susceptible to temperature changes than those who live in regions with more extreme/widely fluctuating yearly temperatures (Group B)? I believe this would be an interesting topic, as it would relate to the brain function, and how our nerves react to gradual change. It could also lead to the formation of further hypothesis on how nurture (the environment you are raised in) can affect one’s physiology.

Hypothesis: Group A individuals are more likely to notice a change in temperature than Group B individuals. Group A individuals are less likely to have been exposed to extreme temperatures throughout their lives as Group B individuals, and it is hypothesized that they will be more likely to notice an extreme temperature being that they are not accustomed to it.

An experiment with controlled variables is best used for this experiment, as the research question is best examined by a blind study. The experiment would be set up in the following fashion:

-Healthy participants from both “extreme” and from “moderate” areas would be selected. Sending surveys with mail in forms to various public and private universities in such regions. Ideally, a sample size of 100 or more for each group is preferred, with an expected minimum of around 50-60.
-Examples of extreme areas, are cities, or regions in the U.S. that are subject to a greater degree of varying temperatures throughout the year (such as Lubbock, TX), whereas examples of moderate areas are cities or regions in the U.S. that are subject to less variance in temperature throughout the year (coastal areas such as San Francisco, CA).
-Participants will ideally be asked to attend a testing facility on a fair weather day, so that extreme outdoor temperatures are less likely to influence the participants conception of temperature during the test.
-Testing facilities will include a small room (where the participant is questioned in) so that it may be heated more precisely and controlled to a greater degree. Rooms will begin at 70 degrees Fahrenheit.

-Participants will be told that they are participating in memory based research. Test admins will be told to encourage participants to ensure that the testing environment is comfortable, and that participants feel completely undistracted, and focused on the memory based test questions. This includes obeying a participant’s wish to have various background objects removed from the small testing room, have pillows, or a small bottle of water brought in, or have the temperature adjusted.
– Once participants are ready, test admins will then begin questioning individuals. Meanwhile a temperature control mechanic outside of the room will gradually lower the temperature of the room by one half a degree Fahrenheit per minute. Test Admins will continue asking questions from the prepared questionnaire for up to 40 minutes, or until 5 minutes after the individual makes note of the temperature.
-A control group will be included where the temperature is neither raised nor lowered.

-Test Admins are to make note of when (if at all) the participant asks for the temperature to be changed, or remarks on how “cold” it is.

-The “hot” version of this test begins once more at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, but increasing in temperature up to a maximum of 85 degrees, and will be administered to different participants from both group A and B as well.

-For safety reasons, the temperature should not reach lower than 50 degrees Fahrenheit in the cold test, or exceed 85 degrees in the hot test so as not to endanger those susceptible to hyperthermia or hypothermia.
-Participants will be awarded a gift card for $25 for their time.

Results would include tabulating the mean temperature difference from the starting temperature, and standard deviations that both group A and B participants requested temperature change/remarked on the coldness or hotness of the room’s temperature.

A Suggestion: How to Improve the Coke vs. Pepsi Experiment

For those who were absent in class, or even for those not in Psychology 101, the details of the experiment in class today were as follows:

The objective of the experiment was to determine whether or not people could tell the difference between Coca-Cola and Pepsi brand soda drinks. The test involved 6 taste testers (5, and a 6th was volunteered). Five samples (approximately 1 ounce each) were poured for the taste testers, and whether or not the sample was to be coke, or pepsi was determined by a coin flip. The samples were administered in a double blind fashion, as both the server, and tester were unaware of the contents of the sample. The taster would then state what s/he believed the identity of the sample was, and was given a small water bottle to cleanse his/her palette before sampling the next sample. The tester’s answers were then compared to the actual identities of the samples at the end.

I think that a few simple and practical changes could have been made to yield a more effective experiment.
-Standardize the Palette cleanses: Include set amounts of water (perhaps 1 cup) for palette cleanses. If the taste tester does not wish to use all of it between samples, then s/he must still proceed on to the next palette cleanse after the next sample. The point of this change would be to better ensure palette cleansing, and decrease the likelihood that testers will be overwhelmed with previous samples.
-Include markings to indicate the “1 ounce” mark on sample cups: This was a problem for those who poured the samples. Some filled the cups to the brim, whereas others only filled the cup about 3/4 full. This created unnecessary variance in the samples.
-Include cold, and fresh drinks: Testers claimed that one way they would be able to tell the difference between Coca Cola and Pepsi brand sodas was by experiencing the entirety of the soda, including the carbonation.
-Allow testers to sample a known aliquot of Coke, and a known aliquot of Pepsi: To ensure testers are well familiarized with the taste of both Coke and Pepsi, all testers should be allowed to sample Coke, and Pepsi before enaging in the experiment.

Week 1 Blog Prompt: Skinner’s Influence on Behaviorism

B.F. Skinner was a prominent American psychologist born in 1904 best known for developing the theory of Behaviorism. In the late 1920s, he enrolled at Harvard University to study psychology. It was during his years here that he developed the famous “Skinner box” (or has he would have preferred it called, the “Lever box.”) which was used to study animal behavior in response to environmental stimuli. It was here that Skinner developed his theory about operant behaviors, and operant conditioning. Operant conditioning refers to the belief that animal behaviors results from learned responses from the environment, and these behaviors are reinforced or punished based on the outcome [1].
Skinner describes the details of his earlier years in an autobiographical section. Skinner describes one childhood memory involving the various warnings his father gave him about having a “criminal mind.” He developed a fear of being punished for wrong doing, and claimed “As a result I am afraid of the police and buy too many tickets to their annual dances. [2]” While not in and of itself an example of operant conditioning, this experience likely played a role in Skinner’s development of his view on Behaviorism. As Skinner believed our behaviors were the result of environmental learning, he would likely associate his excessive fear of the police with the fear mongering of his father during his youth, rather than with a rationale of acting as a “good” law abiding citizen.
Another event during his childhood that may have played a subtle yet pivotal role in the development of his Behaviorist theory would be the time he lost his stop-watch. By some luck, he later found his stop watch, then “hurried home and wrote an account in biblical language and purple ink.” However, no signs of God followed, and “Within a year I had gone to Miss Graves [his teacher at the time] to tell her that I no longer believed in God. [2]” Skinner may have initially attributed his lucky rediscovery of the watch to a miracle, however when he repeated his behavior of hoping for a miracle, he was met with no answer. Later in life, Skinner may have realized that his rejection of the divine stemmed from disappointment, or as he would describe it, negative reinforcement.

References:
[1]: “B.F. Skinner.” Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 08 Feb. 2015.
[2]: B.F. Skinner, pp. 387-413, E.G. Boring and G. Lindzey’s A History of Psychology in Autobiography (Vol. 5), New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1967. Print.

Introductory Blog

Why I chose to take this class: I am taking this class to fulfill a social sciences credit, however I also find psychology to be a fascinating science. Of all my options for social science credits, psychology seems as if it will be the most engaging.

Three topics from the syllabus that seem the most interesting to me:
1. Attachment Theory: I feel that learning about this concept in a scholarly context will give a solid explanation to the ways that I think about interpersonal relationships. I am interested in this topic, as I can think of many unique relationships (family, friend, peer, romantic, online, authority), and would love to learn the differences, and similarities between them.
2. Memory: I’m sure everyone is interested in this topic. Learning about memory will likely help me to build good habits, avoid bad habits, and spread useful knowledge to my friends and family about memory.
3. Conditioning: This is a topic I don’t know very much about. I feel that learning about this topic in the context of a psychology class will challenge the way I think about some every day actions (both mine, and others’) that I wouldn’t otherwise give a second thought to.

Three topics from the syllabus that do not seem very interesting to me:
1. Drugs, Alcohol, & the Brain: While knowing these things is useful to many, I feel like this knowledge is wasted on me as I do not take recreational drugs, nor do I consume alcohol.
2. Sleep: I have done my fair share of reading about sleep, seen videos and presentations on sleep, as well as attended a lecture by a professor whose life work involved sleep. I think at this point, I have a solid grasp on both the benefits of adequate sleep, as well as the detriments of inadequate sleep. In my opinion, I have already developed excellent sleeping habits. I feel that little if anything from this section will surprise me, or change my habits.
3. The Brain: Perhaps information in a psychological context may turn out to be absolutely fascinating to me, but after spending a large portion of my time in the past couple of years studying biological systems in the body (including the nervous system), a rehash of material I am already very familiar with does not sound too appealing at the moment.

A Question I want to be able to answer by the time the class is over: What is the full extent of, and limitations of the placebo effect (with examples from studies)?

Hello world!

This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!