Little Psychology

Just a student who likes psychology // keep up on instagram @littlepsychology_

[littlepsych101]

Classical conditioning explained

Classical conditioning, otherwise known as pavlovian conditioning, is an associative learning process of which derives from the behaviourist school of thought in psychology. It was famously discovered by Ivan Pavlov through his observations of lab dogs’ salivation. This post aims to briefly explain classical conditioning utilising its key concepts. 

Classical conditioning occurs when a neutral stimulus (something of which does not naturally elicit a response from the subject) becomes associated with an unconditioned stimulus that elicits an unconditioned response (something that elicits an automatic or reflexive response, such as a loud bang that generally makes us scared). This association occurs through a process known as pairing. The neutral stimulus and unconditioned stimulus have to occur together in contiguity (close in space or time) in order to become associated. This can be better explained using an analogy:

The subject is instructed to listen to a sequence of words: ‘bag, purse, tag, hearse’. The experimental word in this sequence is ‘bag’ and at the start of the experiment it acts as the neutral stimulus as simply hearing the word won’t typically elicit a reflexive response. Now, the researchers bang a frying pan behind the subjects head each time the word ‘bag’ is said (hence why it is an experimental word) the frying pan will act as the unconditioned stimulus as it evokes the unconditioned (reflexive) response of fear in the subject, perhaps in the form of them flinching when it is banged. The idea now is that as these two stimuli are paired together consistently over a series of trials they will become associated. The visible result of this would be the participant begins to flinch upon hearing the word ‘bag’ even if there is not a bang because they have learned that the word is indicative of a drum banging. The neutral stimulus (bag) has now become a conditioned stimulus that evokes the conditioned response of fear upon hearing it 

There are other assets to this learning process. For instance, ‘stimulus generalisation’ could occur where stimuli similar to the conditioned stimulus can also elicit the conditioned response. Using the word sequence as an example, ‘tag’ could also make the subject flinch because it is acoustically similar to bag. Furthermore ‘extinction’ could also occur, where, if the pairing of the two stimuli stops for a lengthy period of time they are no longer associated, this would be shown in the example above through the participant no longer flinching upon hearing the word ;bag’.

I hope this served as a useful introduction to classical conditioning, there is of course a lot more to cover including experiments and the application of this learning principle in the real world that I would hope to cover in future if desired.

[littlepsych101]

William James and emotion

William James was an extremely influential psychologist and philosopher whom is considered to have played an instrumental role in the development of American psychology. 

One of James’s most notable ideas is the argument that our emotions are shaped by our physiological processes rather than how we believe we feel. A good analogy he used to explain this is of a man walking in the woods. The man comes across a snake and subsequently runs away. 

A question for you, why did the man run away? 

Most would arguably insist that he ran away because he was afraid of the snake. However, according to James, he was in fact scared because he ran away. The reason for this, he argued, is because when we are reacting to a stimulus our biological responses come first e.g. running away (the fight or flight response) and it is our interpretation of that biological response that produces an emotion. James suggested that this sequence of behaviour and emotion served aids in survival as it would be impractical for us to have to process an emotion, and then react based on what we interpret from that, in a life-threatening situation. 

Of course, this is one of many theories of emotion and is not a conclusion. So, do you agree William James?

[littlepsych101]

The least questioned assumptions are often the most questionnable.

Paul Broca

[littlepsych101]

A summary of the psychodynamic approach

I hope to begin to explore the theories of Freud more on my blog as his unique way of thinking has always interested me despite how widely discredited he may be. Before I do so, however, I think a brief summary of his basic ideas that I can refer to on future posts would be useful, we will focus on the psychodynamic approach and it's relation to personality.

- There are three parts to our personality: the Id, the ego and the superego. 'Id' is our instincts, it is the pleasure principle - it involves the life and death instincts (see below), the libido (sex drive) - it is the most primitive part of our personality. The superego is our morality, it contains all the norms, values and laws of society and encourages us to comply with this through the use of guilt (we may feel bad for giving into the Id) and the ideal self (it reminds of who we feel we ought to be). The ego balances between the two conflicting drives, it is the reality principle and has a realistic view of the world, it aids us in making decisions.

- Behaviour occurs due to unconscious conflicts between our drives, needs and motives. The unconscious mind is the most fundamental part of our mind, it is like an iceberg, we cannot see the greatest part. The 'unconscious' part of of the mind is mostly comprised of past experiences from childhood and repressed trauma.

- There is continuity between our childhood experiences and our lives as adults. For instance, the attachment types we have as children will impact our relationship styles as adults (see Bowlby's continuity hypothesis).

- Determinism: All behaviour has a cause. We are governed by the unconscious mind and we naturally have no control over this, we do not have free-will in how we behave, every decision we make is due to something.

-Freudian slips: sometimes the unconscious can spill into the conscious mind and we may say things we didn't mean to. Freud believes that this is a reflection of what we really think and it isn't accidental, no behaviour is.

- We have life a instinct, eros, and a death instinct, thanatos

What do you think of Freud's ideas?

[littlepsych101]

Today in Psychology

18/04/1861 marks the day Paul Broca performed an autopsy on an asphasic patient (difficulty producing speech) who had passed away the day prior. He found a lesion in the left hemisphere, this area is now known as broca's area and is known as being responsible for the production of speech. Damage to this area of the brain cause difficulty with speaking.

[littlepsych101]

We cannot change anything until we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses.

Carl Jung

[littlepsych101]

The placebo effect

The placebo effect refers to the theory that the mind can be used to cure a variety of health issues, this has been witnessed and studied as a real effect and is often used in medical trials. This phenomenon is often studied by comparing the use of pseudo treatments, such as sugar pills, that have no real effect to medical treatments. For instance, we could split a group of people with headaches into two smaller groups, we will try to control the population as much as possible to reduce convening variables. We could give one group ibuprofen for their headaches and the other sugar pills, but no tell the groups which they received. If those in the sugar pill group report that their headache intensity appears to have been lessened by the use of the pill, then it could imply that the placebo effect has taken place. When the mind is convinced that the problem can be cured, maybe the body cures itself.

The most difficult thing about the placebo effect is the fact that we cannot always be certain when it's taken place. There are countless factors that could interfer with the results of studies on this- do those who agree to take part in studies have particular characteristics different to the general population? Just because a patient feels better, does it really mean they are physically cured? Does knowing they are potentially taking a placebo make participants invest less in the treatment if they don't get immediate results?

What do you think?

[littlepsych101]

Today in Psychology

The 17th of April 1840 marks the birth of Hippolyte Bernheim, a well known neurologist and physician. He is known most for his work on hypnosis and his theory of suggestibility which he used to help develop psychotherapy. He is also known as being one of the first to acknowledge the role of false memories with regards to eye witness testimony.

[littlepsych101]

'Ello.

It is important to take breaks when you need them, as admin of a psychology blog it is essential that I practice what i preach.

I am so exicted to almost be at 9,000 followers - even if a few of you might be bots.

New posts will be starting again daily at 19:00 GBT (with extras at different times if I get time)

Thank you for your support!

[littlepsych101]

Psychology&Evolution

As the 12th of February marks the birthday of Charles Darwin, I thought it would be cool to discuss how Darwin's concept of evolution can be applied to psychology, more specifically, attachment psychology (one of my favourite areas).

Historically, attachment has always been vital for human survival. When we are young we are vulnerable and we rely on our caregivers to meet our needs so that we can survive, therefore, it is important that attachment bonds are formed so that our caregivers will become conditioned to want to care for us. Therefore, attachment bonds have proven to be an important part of evolution as species depend on it to secure the survival of the young and the young seek to keep these bonds as part of adaption.

This study shows how attachment can serve as an evolutionary, biological tool that enables the young to survive- we are all geared with a tendency to attach so that we are cared for when we cannot care for ourselves. Now, whether the findings of this particular study can be applied to the human young is up to you.

A popular example of this is found in imprinting with animals which is when the young will automatically attach themselves to the first large moving object they see as a means to survive . There is debate as to whether we can apply the behaviours and tendencies of animals to humans, but in evolution it is seen that we all use similar biological tools (such as fuelling attachment bonds) to adapt and survive. Therefore, there is arguably ground for comparison.

The example i will use for this is the work of Konrad Lorenz (1935). Lorenz studied imprinting in goslings. For this, he split a clutch of golsingd into two groups. One group would be naturally hatched and the mother would be the first large object they encounter. The other group would hatch in an incubator and Lorenz would be the first large object they encounter. If the principle of imprinting is valid, both groups would automatically attach to the first large object, whether it was the mother or lorenz, regardless as to whether that object birthed them.

The principle of imprinting was proven correct in this scenarios as the naturally hatched goslings followed their mother around (an example of attachment behaviour) and the incubator goslings followed Lorenz.

What do you think? Images are not mine.

[littlepsych101]

Just tryna spice things up a little

[littlepsych101]

'Drive' by Daniel H. Pink: a book review.

As part of my reading in preparation for university applications, I chose to read this book as it seemed pretty popular and I'd heard of Pink's successes with other books regarding business and behavioural sciences. The content explores the psychology behind motivation - and how we got it wrong.

If you have ever been interested in the early work of Harry Harlow, or are looking to study business or the psychology of, I believe you would find this book intriguing.

To quickly summarise Pink's argument in the book, he believes that the idea that humans are predominantly motivated to do things, such as better their performance at work, through the promise of a reward (motivation 2.0), is outdated. Instead, there is new evidence for a third and most effective motivation (motivation 3.0) which is the fulfilment and enjoyment we get out of doing something. Rewards may draw us to perform certain tasks, but it is the true enjoyment of said tasks that gets them done well. Thus, for instance, in a work environment employers shouldn't just look to bribe their employees into working hard, they should make the job more enjoyable as well.

Personally, the themes with in this book would not typically draw my attention within psychology. However, I found Pink's clever way of using examples from multiple scenarios where the third drive could be used, such as in exercise or education, to be an amazing way of helping the reader to understand his ideas. Additionally, the chapter summaries towards the end of the book are a great way to help the reader refresh the most important ideas of the book - they are also useful when a chapter appeared more complex. Then, finally, the engage the reader he lists a bunch of questions regarding your experience of reading the material and your thoughts on his ideas which is good for those who are perhaps researching his work or are looking to go beyond the material within the book.

Overall, Pink does an excellent job of persuading the reader that the third drive is very real, and very important. I am not surprised that his work has had so much success as he has already influenced the attitudes of employers, and also makes his book accessible to those who perhaps take less interest or have less of a grasp on the topic.

[understanding-heart]

psychology of tumblr

hello everyone, I’m a psychology student and I need your help. if you could fill out this short and anonymous survey about your behaviuor on Tumblr you would help me a lot. also, if you can reblog it so that your followers see it and answer it, I would be BEYOND GRATEFUL. (if you’re reblogging, leave it on your blog for a few hours or how ever long you feel comfortable, and then you can erase it so it doesn’t mess up your blog aesthetic) https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/M3XKNVS

[littlepsych101]

^ TAKE PART IN A STUDY

[littlepsych101]

What is Schizophrenia?

Schizophrenia is a long term mental illness that is characterised by a variety of symptoms that are high in severity such as hallucinations (seeing or hearing things that are not there), muddled thinking patterns (trouble with connecting thoughts or pausing whilst explaining something) and delusions (inaccurate beliefs that are deemed abnormal and are persistent),  it can often result in frequent changes of moods - all of this has often led to a stigmatisation of the illness and a belief that those who suffer from it can potentially be dangerous or violent, but this is a mere stereotype and when violent behaviour is displayed by those with the illness, this is often caused by other external factors such as intoxication and will often be inflicted on the individual themselves.

There are two categories often used to describe the symptoms of schizophrenia: positive and negative. Now, in everyday life these terms are often used interchangeably with ‘good’ and ‘bad’ - but in psychology they are used to describe when something, like a behaviour is added (positive) and when something is taken away or reduced. So positive symptoms appear due to the schizophrenia and negative symptoms are behaviours/thoughts that are reduced due to the schizophrenia

Positive symptoms: having visual or auditory hallucinations, believing the government (or other) are after you, a distrust in others, irrational beliefs (thought disorders), long pauses

Negative symptoms: a lack of motivation, a lack of interest in activities and everyday life, a lessened experience of emotion, problems with memory, reduced movement 

What causes schizophrenia?

As with all illnesses and disorders, it is impossible to come up with a definitive cause for schizophrenia and is likely a combination of multiple interacting factors. A few examples are:

Genes: There is a significant trend that shows how schizophrenia tends to run in families, the percentage of individuals who develop the illness increases from 1% in the general population too 10% if they have an intermediate relative with it. This in increases to roughly 40-65% in MZ (identical) twins whom share 100% of their DNA. 

Biological: it may be that those with schizophrenia have an imbalance of brain chemicals (neurotransmitters) such as dopamine. Additionally, there may be a difference in brain structure, these ideas are still being researched.

Environment: Of course, the concordance rate for schizophrenia or any illness with never be 100% because there is no one cause, this leads scientists to believe that genetic or biological factors may interact with the environment to cause the illness. Environmental factors are anything that happens to us or that we experience externally, this could be things such as trauma, malnutrition as a child or birth complications as well as drug induced psychosis.

Treatments:

Community Health Teams: made up of professionals such as social workers, mental health nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists etc. that are tailored to the individual and will support them in living their everyday life independently.

Antipsychotics: they block the transmission of the neurotransmitter dopamine, reducing the levels of it within the brain as too high levels have been associated with the symptoms experienced by schizophrenics. 

Therapy/psychological treatment: therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy and art therapy are commonly used to help with the psychological, cognitive and emotional aspects of the illness.

The debate:

Psychologists are still debating today whether schizophrenia is one illness itself of a combination of symptoms caused by a range of illnesses, and whether it should be a diagnosis or whether the symptoms should be focused on individually. Regardless of this debate, individuals are still diagnosed with it and so it is important to raise awareness for those who have to live with the diagnosis.

I would absolutely love to go more in depth on the variations of schizophrenia and the research behind it in the future - expect more! But, for now this was just a broad summary of the illness and its symptoms, I hope the information is useful. If you believe you or someone you know may experience the symptoms described, I encourage you to seek professional support and to know that you are not alone, schizophrenia impacts over 21 million people globally.

[littlepsych101]

The Schacter and Singer experiment on emotion

Schacter and Singer composed the Two-Factor theory of emotion. This theory states that there are two main factors in the creation of emotion, physical arousal and what we think about this, how we label it. So, our body undergoes physical changes when creating an emotional response and our understanding of this change will depend on what we know it to be e.g. being sweaty could be deemed a sign that we are nervous. Therefore, this can also be shaped by our environment, if we are in a situation that we positively evaluate, we are more likely to interpret any emotional physical changes as happiness.To test this, they conducted the following study…

Topic: Cognitive psychology/biopsychology

Key Researcher(s): Schacter and Singer

Year: 1962

Study type: a laboratory study with observation and self report measures

Study population: 184 male college students

Procedure:

The participants were taken to a room at the start of the study and were told that the aim of the study was to test the impact vitamin injections have on visual perception. There were initially 195 participants but only 184 agreed to have injections.

The participants were then given an injection by a doctor, it was either adrenaline or a placebo (a mock drug e.g. a sugar pill). All those of you who have studied the fight or flight effect will know that the hormone adrenaline arouses the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system in order to prepare the body to fight or flee. This leads to physical changes such as pupil dilation, sweat secretion, immunosuppression, rapid breathing and an increased heart rate.

Once injected, the participants were put into one of four conditions (independent variable #1). Adrenaline ignorant (injected with adrenaline without being informed of its effects), Adrenaline informed (injected with adrenaline and informed of its effects), Adrenaline misinformed (injected with adrenaline and informed of effects that would not actually occur such as numb feet) and the control group (given the placebo which would not have any effect and were therefore not informed of any effects.)

The participants were then sent to a room where they would meet another participant who would actually be a confederate (an actor hired by the researchers who is in on the study) who did not know which of the four conditions the participants were in. The confederate would behave in one

of two ways (independent variable #2): angered or euphoric.

In the euphoric condition, the researcher told the participants they had 20 minutes before their visual test and could help themselves to the pencils, rubbers and paper in the room. The confederate would start a conversation and then fiddle and play with the stationary and encourage the participant to join in.

In the angered condition (adrenaline misinformed participants did not enter this condition as the euphoric scenario was considered enough), the participants would be asked to fill out questionnaires whilst the confederate complained about them not being told about the injections when first asked to join the study.  They would then fill in the questionnaire, the questions slowly grew more and more intrusive e.g. asking about sexual experiences. The confederate would then make often standardised (made the same for each study in order to create consistency) remarks about the questions, this grew in intensity before they acted enraged at the end.

The researchers would not only observe the expressions of the participants from behind a one-way mirror but also got the participants to fill in self-report questions that would assess how they were feeling. 

The results/conclusion:

The participants given adrenaline did show the physical changes expected whereas the participants given the placebo did not, showing that being injected by the hormone did make a difference. However, 5 participants in the adrenaline condition did not show the symptoms and were therefore deducted from the results. During the euphoric condition, the participants who were misinformed showed the greatest happy emotion, followed by the adrenaline ignorant ones. This implies that the participants were happier because they did not have the proper explanation of their physical changes to generate labels for their emotions which made them more dependent on their cognitions. As cognitions are our thinking patterns, these would have likely been shaped by the behaviour of the confederate, thus leading the participants to interpret it as happiness - supporting the two-factor model. Similarly, in the angered condition the adrenaline ignorant participants experienced the highest levels of anger. They too were more likely to have their perception of their emotions moulded by the confederate as they had no other way of explaining the physical changes they were experiencing.

This study supports the two-factor model of emotion because it shows how physical changes are standard and do contribute to the understanding of emotion, but it is our perception of these changes in terms of how we are feeling that really help to generate an understanding of emotion overall. This is exhibited in how even though the adrenaline participants in the euphoric condition were experiencing changes symptomatic of panic, they labelled this as happiness because they had no further understanding of it but they did have the confederate there to manipulate their perception.

Image one source: https://sites.google.com/site/hookappsychology/emotion-by-gabriel-goldhagen/two-factor-theory

Image two source: verywell

[littlepsych101]

Not everyone agrees with you, sorry.

As social beings with a drive for companionship, it is expected that we will hope and determine that others will agree with our thoughts, views and statements, however, this appears to rarely be the case.

in 1977 Lee Ross, a professor at Stanford University set out to study how individuals can create a ‘false consensus’ for themselves, where they believe that others will agree with them and will therefore often ascribe this to others. In order to achieve this, he conducted two studies.

Procedure (study one): 

Participants read an extract detailing a conflict that had occurred, they then were told of two different responses to the conflict and were asked: 

Which option they would choose

Which option others would choose

To describe the characteristics of the individuals who would choose one response, and then the characteristics of the individuals who would choose the other. 

What did study one show? 

No matter which response the individuals showed, the majority of participants predicted that others would agree with them, supporting that the ‘false consensus effect’ is a real phenomenon. Secondly, when asked to describe the two different groups of individuals, they often described the ‘outgroup’ (those who would likely choose the response the participant did not) with negative terms. This shows how we can sometimes create a somewhat bubble for ourselves where we can positively evaluate and appreciate those who agree with us (as we believe our worldview to be the right one) but sometimes belittle those who not to safeguard our worldview. 

Procedure (study two)

Participants were asked to walk around the campus of the university wearing a sandwich board which read ‘Eat at Joe’s’, to incentivise this they were reassured that they would learn something new during this. So here, Ross is measuring opinions on the decisions of others. 

What did study two show?

The results of study two reinforced the results of study one. Of those who agreed to do the task, roughly 62% predicted that others would do the same. Of those who chose to not do the task, 33% believed others would agree to. This shows how we are more likely to assume that others would agree with our choices. Furthermore, the pattern of positively evaluating those who agree with us and negatively evaluating those who do not, was continued.

So, the work of Lee Ross appears to show important trends in the way we view ourselves and others. I believe that the results are important in showcasing how we can sometimes create echo-chambers for ourselves and never challenge our way of thinking or making decisions, leaving ourselves in a rut and often preventing growth. Therefore, I think the main lesson that can be derived from this is to delve more into opposing thoughts and opinions, to open up to debate and criticism, because surrounding ourselves with only those who agree with us will most likely prevent us from learning. Also - not to be dramatic - but a lack of debate and challenge has been proven to be responsible for multiple atrocities in history (amongst other factors) such as The Holocaust, The Guyana tragedy and more.

Challenge: research into an opposing view on a topic you care about. Tell me how it goes!

[littlepsych101]

The Robber’s Cave Experiment: A break down

Topic: Social Psychology

Key researcher(s): Muzafer Sherif 

Year:1954

Study type: Participant observation

Study population: 22 white, middle-class boys aged 11-12

Muzafer Sherif was a social psychologist famous for his Conflict Theory which hypothesised that conflicts between different groups are caused by factors such as having negative prejudices and stereotypes of each other, as well as things such as competing for resources. ‘Robbers Cave’ was his most famous study and the results are used to underpin his explanation of how conflict is created.

Procedure: 

The boys, who had never met each other before, were divided into one of two groups but were not made aware of the fact that there was another group. In their separate groups, they were then taken to Robber’s Cave Park in Oklahoma to enjoy a boy scout holiday camp.

During the first week, the camp was run as expected, the boys were encouraged to bond with each other and partake in team-building exercises and activities that involved group-work and planning. Through this they inevitably became closer and attachments were made, they began to function similar to a society, constructing their own norms, values and culture, they named their teams (The Rattlers and the Eagles) and built flags to mark their territory. However, they were still not told about there being a second group at the camp.

After the separate groups had bonded in week one, Sherif decided it was time to enter the ‘competition stage’ of the study which would range from 4-6 days. The Rattlers and the Eagles became opponents in activities such tug of war as part of a competition to win a trophy.

The third week would be focused on getting the boys to rejoice after the competition had created division and conflict between the groups. The researchers decided that in order to do this they should unite the boys against one common problem such s the drinking water problem, where they were out under the impression that their drinking water had been cut off, forcing them to come together to solve the problem. 

Results:

When the groups were pit against each other during the second week, they began to show divisive behaviour towards each other by name-calling and taunting members of the opposing group. This worsened as the Eagles burned the Rattlers’ flag and the Rattler’s ransacking the base of the Eagles and stealing their belongings the next day. 

During the first couple of days of the competition stage, the two groups were asked to describe each other. This led to a trend of the children describing their team with positive terms and the opposing team with negative terms, showing prejudice against each other and the use of the stereotypes. 

However, by the end of the third week, it was shown that uniting the teams against one common problem did indeed lead to a decrease in conflict. The boys began to associate and positively evaluate their out-group and they all even chose to ride in the same bus on the way home.

Conclusion:

This study shows how Muzafer’s theory that conflict can be caused by competition and prejudice. He shows how even seemingly average children who have shown no antisocial behaviour in the past can become hostile towards another group of children when a climate of competition is created. This can be applied to real-life situations such as the Holocaust, where seemingly ordinary Germans discriminated against the Jews. It can also be seen in real life when, for instance, unemployment is high - it is more likely that the people and the government may blame other groups of people for this issue rather than uniting everyone to solve the problem. This study also shows how socialisation and being forced to work with an outgroup can lead to a decrease in discriminatory behaviour, which could have real-world applications to help prevent prejudiced behaviour (like encouraging diversity within the media and doing team building exercises in school to expose individuals to people they may otherwise see as the ‘outgroup’). 

Criticism:

This study is lacking in ecological validity as both the groups and the competition were artificial (made by researchers) therefore limiting the extent to which the results can be applied to the real world. Similarly, the study is ethnocentric (it focuses on one ethnic group and assumes that the results can be applied to all ethnic groups) as the study merely consisted of white children. There are also ethical issues as the participants were not made aware of the study and were therefore unable to consent and were deceived as well. Also, the children were not protected from psychological of physical harm during the study and the hostile behaviour encouraged has been compared to the barbarism of the novel The Lord of The Flies. Muzafer and his colleagues have also been accused of interfering with and manipulating the study to yield the results they desired.

This study was highly funded due to the aftermath of the second world war, there was a race to find out what it was that caused people to turn on each other like in the Holocaust. Therefore, the researchers were under pressure to present a  result and so they allegedly did things such as purposely destroying the property of one group and blame it on the other to cause tension and convinced the boys that property was stolen by the opposite team, when in fact it was the researchers. Therefore, the results could be the product of researcher bias.