Human Guinea Pig

The other day I read an article online about animal testing, where a woman allowed herself to be subjected to the brutal tests that are performed on animals. She was force-fed, injected, had irritants sprayed in her eyes, along with many other tests that left her ‘choking, gagging and trying to break free’ from the restraints that kept her. This occurred in a shop window of a busy high street to try and make people realise what animals undergo for our sake.

This got me thinking about animal testing in Psychology. As we know animals are subjected to testing in Psychology and there are several ethical guidelines in place to try to protect them from as much harm as possible. But, they are still subjected to harm. One of example of how animals are used in Psychology is for the use of drug research. If it wasn’t for animal testing, we probably wouldn’t have such advanced medicine as we do now.

Furthermore, there are several advantages to animal testing including that it is inexpensive, it is proven to be an effective method and due to it meaning that humans do not have to undergo potentially dangerous tests.

However, despite all this, is it really fair that we subject hanimals to possible pain and distress purely for our own benefit?

 

 

References:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4278437/Womans-shocking-animal-testing-protest-in-shop-window.html

Be Happy.

Whilst Psychologists could talk your ear off about depression it seems that in comparison we don’t have quite as much to say about happiness. I, personallity, like to think that I am happy almost 100% of the time and I’m grateful that my mind isn’t clouded with depression. However, 1 in 5 people will experience depression at some point in their life. Positive psychologists aim to bottle happiness and save mankind from the treacherous grips of depression.

Positive psychology simply is what it says on the tin. It is the exploration of the positive aspects of life- such as happiness. It is a quite new field of psychology but it is rapidly developing and there are many different theories included in this branch of psychology. Due to being a relatively new branch of psychology there is a lack of research when compared to other areas of psychology and it may be argued that there is a lack of plentiful and conclusive evidence to support the theories they propose. But let’s just bare in mind that is is a new theory and all movements have to start somewhere.

According to Seligman (2002) there are 3 aspects of positive psychology that each have their own route to achieve happiness:

– Positive emotions: this is the study of contentment with the past, happiness in the present and hope for the future. Achievement of this aspect will lead to a ‘Pleasant Life’

– Positive Individual Traits: this is the study of the strengths and virtues, resilience and other positive characteristics. The outcome of this having such positive traits would be an ‘Engaged Life’

– Positive Institutions: this is the study of positive communities, what makes them and what there purpose is. Individuals who achieve this aspect lead a ‘Meaningful Life’.

The combination of all three routes to happiness, in particular a pleasant and meaningful life, is the best way to reach happiness.

For me, an outstanding example of somebody who has achieved all three routes to happiness is Professor Randy Pausch. This can be seen in the lecture he presents at Carnegie Mellon University. The title of the lecture is the “Last Lecture”- this is where teachers are asked to present what would be the last lecture they would give if they were near death. Randy Pausch, was in fact a dying man. At the time of his lecture he had an estimated 3-6 months left to live. Yet, whilst you listen to his lecture you forget this and instead are captivated by the admirable happiness that he exudes. The video itself is roughly 76 minutes long but in just the first few minutes as he discusses the cancer he has been diagnosed with you can gain an insight into the uplifting happiness he felt.

In conclusion, although Positive Psychology is a new field of psychology there are high hopes for it. Critics may argue that it fails to acknowledge the negative aspects of society. However, it can also be counter-argued that rather that ignoring them it compliments then by focusing on research the positive aspects of society that Psychology tends to dismiss. Therefore, it presents new theories that can be useful in combating negativity in society and in improving our understanding of positivity.

References:

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.

http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/Default.aspx

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pausch/

You are what you wear

Give a girl the right shoes and she can conquer the world.

Marilyn Monroe probably didn’t realise quite how right she was when she said those words. The media is constantly playing on the importance on appearance with TV programmes such as ‘What Not to Wear’ and page after page in magazines dedicated to fashion. It has long been known that we instantly and often unconsciously judge people based on their appearances. We may not mean to do it, but we do and therefore how you look can affect how others perceive you to be. Recent research has found that not only can it affect other peoples perceptions of you but it can also affect how you perceive yourself.

Adam and Galinsky (2012) proposed that clothes can have a cognitive effect on the indiviudal wearing them. They suggested that this will depend on the symbolic meaning attached to the clothing and the actual wearing of the clothes as well.

They found that whilst wearing a lab coat to perform a stroop test participants made significantly less errors than those who wore their own clothes. They also found that, in relation to the symbolic meaning of the clothing, those who wore the lab coat performed better on a task than those who wore the coat but believed it was a painters’ coat.

Previously, Zimbardo (1969) found that wearing a large hood and cape could increase a persons likelihood to adminster electric shocks to another person. However, this research focused mainly on the deindividuation of individuals and unlike the research conducted by Adam and Galinsky did not look closely at the effect on clothing on a persons cognition.

Although it is still early days for research into this topic, it appears that identification with clothing can have an affect our own abilities and beliefs about ourselves.

 

References:

Adam, H., and Galinsky, A. (2012). Enclothed Cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.008

Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order vs. deindividuation, impulse and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 17, pp. 237-307). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Street Musicians and Psychology

In January 2007, in one of Washington’s busiest Subway Stations, during rush-hour, a violinist performed 43 minutes of Bach compositions. During this time, over 1,000 people passed him by yet barely any of them stopped to pay attention or donate money to the busker, in fact only 6 people stayed for a short while to listen to his music and he only collected $32. He finished playing and wasn’t rewarded with a round of applause in recognition but instead went unnoticed. What the passerbys may not have known was that the street musician who had just played one of the most intricate pieces ever written was one of the world’s most talented musicians, Joshua Bell. Just two days before he played in the subway he had outsold a theatre concert where seats averaged at $100. So, why did musical pandemonium fail to occur when he played for free in the station? Why, just because the location changed, did the behaviour receive next to no reaction?

This social experiment conducted by the Washington Post intrigued me. It sparked many questions in my mind as to how behaviour is affected by the environment that we are in. In the original article Bell explains how he wonders if their inattention was deliberate- were they choosing to ignore the music so they didn’t feel guilty about not giving him money. However, it is important to consider that the passerbys may have simply been too busy to stop and listen, seeing as at the time of the performance many people were on their way to work via the subway and so were likely on a strict schedule. But, I’m certain that almost everyone who reads this blog will agree with me that they too have purposely avoided a homeless person on the street just so they do not have to deal with the guilt of not helping them. But why do we do this?

One possible psychological explain that could be applied to why people ignored Bell’s performance is the psychology of helping behaviour. One factor involved in helping behaviour is reciprocity (the likelihood of help being returned) therefore street musicians may be ignored because the direct benefits in return for helping are low. Also in 1973, Darley and Batson found that when on a tight schedule only 45% of people helped another individual and only 10% who thought they were late. So cost of time could be an explanation for why street musicians who play in busy locations are often ignored.

Moreover, it is interesting that when people found out who Bell really was they reported that they would have stopped to listen if they had known of his status at the time. This relates to Value attribution theory, this suggests that we judge things/people based upon themselves and the context in which they are. So, in the case of Joshua Bell, world-class musicians are not attributed to playing in subway stations but rather poorer people struggling to make a living on the streets. Therefore, people would overlook his musical talent.

I understand that there are many explanations for why we may chose not to help in situations similar to this, however I feel that this is an interesting aspect of psychology because surely we should aim to help others and we often like to believe that we would help. However, this study has shown that we live in a society where in order for something to be appreciated it appears that the context in which it lies must be optimal, but I feel this naïve view prevents us from truly appreciating things that are beautiful (such as the music of a struggling street musician).

References:

Weingarten, G. (2007, April 8). Pearls before breakfast. The Washington Post. Retrieved January 10, 2010: Original article by the Washington Post

Darley, J. & Batson, C. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.

Kelley, H. & Michela, J. (1980). Attribution Theory and Research. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 31, 457-501.

Read This

Are you really so malleable that you would allow yourself to be ordered around so easily, that you would obey a typed instruction to read this blog? In my eyes one of the downfalls of humans is our willingness to obey orders, especially those given by authority figures. C.P. Snow once said that when you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. But why is this? What is it that makes us so quick to obey?

The word obedience refers to our submission to the order of someone of a higher stature, usually an authority figure. Many psychologists have conducted research into the area of obedience. Much of this was sparked by the aftermath of the holocaust and people’s disbelief that humans could commit such unforgiveable acts merely because they obeyed the authority. German Nazi, Adolf Eichmann, was charged with crimes against humanity and in his defence he stated that:

The orders were, for me, the highest thing in my life, and I had to obey them without question

Milgram was interested in setting out to prove that the German’s were different- that they had a character deficit which caused their obedience. However, after conducting intensive research into this area he found that they are in fact no different from anyone else, they are no different than you or me. Milgram’s famous study where participants subjected a helpless victim to fatal electric shocks when ordered to by an authority figure, showed that we are willing to commit acts that we would probably never dream of doing. Although this study did involve major ethical issues it was useful in aiding our understanding of obedience.

An example of obedience in a real-life setting would be Hofling et al (1966). They found that 95% of nurses obeyed an unknown doctor’s orders to administrate a lethal dosage of a drug to patients. However, 95% of another 22 nurses said that if they were in that situation they would have refused to obey the orders. This shows how the presence of an authority figure can cause people to follow orders that they would like to think they would disobey.

Studies have shown that there is a strong correlation between authoritarianism and obedience, which even includes the willingness to accept tyranny. Milgram (1974) proposes that when faced with commands from authority figures we lose our sense of responsibility for our actions and instead act as agents of those of a higher status and willingly yield to their wishes. It is possible that this may be due to evolution because we have been brought up in a society that stresses the importance of submitting to authority from the day we are born and therefore this could account for why such horrific acts are committed in the name of obedience.

References:

Milgram. S (1963) Behavioural Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

Hofling et al. (1966) An Experimental Study of Nurse-Physician Relationships. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 143:171-180

The Human Memory

Psychological research has provided us insight into how our memory works and how we can improve our memory. The mind’s ability to store and recall information is astounding, yet it is often overlooked and taken for granted. Without memory how would we learn anything?

Several models of memory have been devised in attempt to explain how the memory works, including the Multi-Store Model of Memory (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968).  This model has three key components: Short-term memory, Long-term memory and Sensory memory. All three components have different levels of capacity, duration and encoding, which are supported by research. For instance, Miller (1956) suggested that the capacity of short-term memory is 7 +- 2 ‘chunks’ of information.

Atkinson & Shiffrin's model of memory

This model of memory is supported by a large amount of research and can also effectively explain primacy and recency effects in recall. However, this model is very reductionist as it simplifies such a complex theory into very simple terms. For example, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) have shown that the Short-term memory is far more complex than this model suggests and is infact made up of many different components. Also, this model cannot explain why rehearsal doesn’t always lead to the information being stored in the Long-term store- for example, revising your lecture notes yet not being able to recall the information in an exam.

An extraordinary case study of a woman who can remember everything shows just how amazing our memory is. In 2008, the newspapers were strewn with stories of a woman who claimed to remember everything, including the smallest of details, that has occurred in her life since she was 14 years old. Neuroscientists suggest that this incredible ability to remember everything is possibly triggered by an environmental trauma. Since studying the case study of this woman, Professor McGaugh has found five other cases similar to this one. This suggests that it may be possible for us to recall everything that has happened and that the memory is much stronger than research depicts.

Furthermore, Neuropsychologist, Oliver Sacks looked into the case study of an older woman who one day awoke with songs from her childhood playing in her mind: songs, which she hadn’t listened to since she was young. Yet they were no longer dormant memories and now vividly played in her mind. This event only lasted a few days and was found to be due to temporal-lobe seizures. This provides support for how pliable our memory is and that it can be easily effected by disorders in other areas of the brain. So, not only can we lose our memory through disorders like Amnesia but it is also possible to recall lost memories as a result of other brain dysfunctions.

To conclude, research has shown that our ability to remember and recall information in extremely powerful. Research has shown that we can improve memory through certain techniques (like mnemonics, chunking or association) and that other brain disorders can significantly affect memory. Further research conducted in this area could have revolutionary implications for the future… if we have found that people are able to vividly recall memories, maybe further research could even lead us to be able to change our memories (like in the butterfly effect!)

 references:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1940420/The-woman-who-can-remember-everything.html

 

Atkinson, R.C., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes” In Spence, K.W. & Spence, J.T. The psychology of learning and motivation, 2. New York: Academic Press. pp. 89–195.

 

Miller, G.A, (1956). “The magical number seven”. The Psychological Review 63: 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158
Sacks, O.  (1985). The man who mistook his wife for a hat.  Picador, London. 139-153.

Psychodynamic theory: Is it a pseudoscience?

Freud founded the Psychodynamic theory in the late 19^th century. This perspective focuses on the unconscious being a determiner for human behaviour and actions. This perspective was once the dominant theory in psychology and is one of the most famous theories. However, there are many flaws to this theory and therefore it could be argued to be a pseudoscience. So, should the Psychodynamic theory be considered as an important aspect of psychology, today?

 

Firstly, the Psychodynamic theory does not follow the scientific method and so can be argued to be a pseudoscience. This theory fails to use objective methods and rather subjectively interprets ideas, such as human behaviour as being due to the unconscious. This level of subjectivity makes it difficult to scientifically analyse Psychodynamic theory.

 

Furthermore, most Psychodynamic theory cannot be falsified, this is due to them presenting a circular argument in order to prevent them from being disproved. For example, Psychoanalysts would argue the case of the Oedipus complex (1910) (that boys are sexually infatuated with their mothers and so want to kill their fathers) and if someone argues that boys do not feel this way, Psychoanalysts would argue back that they do, it’s just a suppressed unconscious feeling so they do not know it. This means that their theories cannot be revised or improved because they refuse to try prove their theories wrong.

 

Also, Psychodynamic theory often contains far-fetched ideas that cannot be studied. For example, the id, ego and superego cannot be observed and therefore, this theory lacks empirical evidence. Likewise, dream interpretation cannot be studied due to being unobseravable. This means that these concepts lack reliability due to not being replicable because a systematic, scientific method isn’t used.

 

Moreover, this theory ignores meditational processes (such as thinking) and free will. Thus, making it deterministic as it suggests that the individual has no control over their behaviour because it is monitored by unconscious motives.

 

So, I have come to the conclusion that due to having many methodological flaws, including not being able to be statistically analysed, and due to not following the scientific method, the Psychodynamic theory is not a science, and is in fact a pseudoscience. Therefore, less emphasis should be placed on this theory and we should focus more on theories such as behaviourism and biological psychology.

 

References:

Freud, S. (1913). The interpretation of dreams. New York, Macmillan

The DSM-IV vs. The ICD-10: Do We Really Need Both?

It can be difficult to classify certain mental disorders. This is partially due to the existence of two different classification systems- the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV. However, are these differences enough to cause concern and should we converge to just having one classification system?

Research has shown that both of the systems are largely comparable (Lopez-Ibor, 1994). This suggests that any differences between the two are minor and therefore should not be worried about. However, if these differences have the ability to cause validity and reliability issues then we should be more cautious when conducting research in this field because it may undermine research findings.

Furthermore, the CIDI version 2.1 conducted a systematic diagnostic interview on each criterion within both the ICD-10 and DSM-IV. Using this information, Andrews, Slade and Peters (1999) conducted a study on 1300-1500 people and found that the concordance rate for the disorders varied dependant on the type of disorder (see table below). This shows that a problem with having two classification systems is that they do not use standardised worldwide methods to diagnose a disorder. So, this could mean that the client to not receive the appropriate treatment if they are incorrectly diagnosed.

One example of a difference between the two systems is that the DSM-IV only recognises 5 sub-types of schizophrenia where as the ICD-10 notices 7 different sub-types. The extra sub-types are unaccounted for in the DSM-IV and therefore may be treated differently.

Furthermore, this can cause problems for researchers interested in this field of psychology. Researchers are more likely to use the DSM-IV, where as clinicians are most likely to use the ICD-10. Therefore, the researcher may not be studying the disorder they believe to be if it has been classified differently using another system and so issues of internal validity could arise.

To conclude, I believe that these differences, however minor they may be, are significant and could have negative implications for research and for the treatment of disorders.  As a solution to this, I suggest that they should aim to have just one classification system to be used worldwide. One benefit is that it will increase the reliability of the diagnosis of disorders because everyone will use the same method and it will increase the validity as there will be no conflict in definitions, symptoms or any other aspects considered important in the diagnosis of disorders, like we have seen occur between the DSM-IV and ICD-10.

 

References

Andrews, G., Slade, T., Peters, L. (1999)Classification in psychiatry: ICD-10 versus DSM-IV
The British Journal of Psychiatry.  v. 174. no. 1.   p. 3 – 4

 

Lopez Ibor, J.J, Frances A. & Jones, C. (1994) Dysthymic disorder: a comparison of DSM-IV and ICD-10 and issues in differential diagnosis
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica.  v. 89. no. s383.   p. 12

Observations: Overt Vs. Covert

There are two types of naturalistic observations, overt and covert. Observations are a favourable method used in Behaviourism. In this post, I hope to conclude which type of observation is the best method to use in Psychology.

Overt observations refer to the researcher being open about their intentions in the field and ensuring all members of the social group are aware of what is happening. An advantage of this type of observation is that it allows the researcher to be honest with the participants, thus avoiding problematic ethical issues such as deception or lack of informed consent. Furthermore, it also prevents the researcher from becoming over-familiar with the participants and ‘going native’. Therefore, aiming to keep the observation objective and free from bias. However, a disadvantage would be that the participants understand the aims of the observer and so there is likely to be possible observer effects (the participants changing there behaviour acting in a way that they believe is expected by the experimenter). An example of an overt observation would be Williams, 1986 study on the media effects on anti-social behaviour in children. In this study 6-11 year old children from an isolated society were assessed on their levels of aggression after the introduction of TV. The children knew they were being studied and so they may have shown demand characteristics or social desirability effects.

Covert observations involve the researcher not informing members of the group the reason for their presence; keeping their true intentions secret. This automatically raises ethical concerns. In this case, the researcher may not be protected, or may not protect others, from the risk of harm- especially if they social group they are studying are a deviant group that may partake in violent acts. Also, they will be deceiving the participants and will lack informed consent. Also, in this type of observation there are chances that the researcher could become bias in their view and may ‘go native’. An advantage of covert observation is that it allows us access to social groups that normally would not provide consent to being involved in studies. Therefore, allowing us to research and expand knowledge on lesser-known social groups, which in turn will widen our Psychological understanding of the world. Also, this type of observation avoids problems surrounding observer-effects and so may be considered to be higher in validity than overt observations. An example of a covert observation would be the famous Bandura’s 1961 Bobo doll study. In this study, after watching a model act violently the children were unknowingly observed as they played with toys, so the researcher could measure the childrens level of aggression after watching a model acting aggressively. The children were unaware that they were being observed and the reasons why they were involved in this study and therefore they would more likely to show natural displays of behaviour.

In my opinion, covert observations are the better option because they provide a more valid view of the group being studied and avoid issues of demand characteristics. Although, it could be argued that the ethical issues involved render this method less effective I believe that they can be overcome if the researcher ensures that they fully debrief the participants afterwards. Also, if the potential findings of the study are significant to Psychology then it may justify ethical issues such as lack of informed consent. However, in the case of potential risk of harm I feel that it is harder to decide whether or not to conduct a covert observation, because although the findings may be revolutionary for the psychological world it is still putting others in danger.

 

 

Bandura, A. (1961), The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 63 (3), 575-582, 10.1037/h0045925

Animal Emotion and Sentience

It is often the case that non-human animals will be used in experimental studies that would be considered unethical to practice on human participants and the results will then be applied to humans. I understand that there are rules and regulations in place to protect the animals welfare during research, but is this enough?

It is quite obvious that animals are able to experience physical pain and therefore it’s important to try and reduce this risk during research. But what about emotional pain; can animals, like human beings, experience emotional pain? If they can, is it right to subject them to emotional pain, that we wouldn’t humans, just for science?

I understand that the use of non-human animals in experiments can be useful in understanding humans and could even have life-saving implications, such as new drugs to cure diseases. However, in some cases it isn’t as easy to justify the subject of animals to harm for psychology. One example is the Monkey Drug Trial, 1969. In this study, a large sample of monkeys and rats were trained to inject themselves with a variety of drugs, including alcohol and cocaine, and were then left alone with a large supply of such drugs. The result of this was that the animals conflicted serious physical pain upon themselves due to high levels of distress and hallucinations associated with the drugs they were taking, including some breaking their own bones and even fatalities occurring. The point of this study was to understand the effects of addiction. But, there are alternatives methods to studying this topic that would have been more ethically sound.

Furthermore, studies have shown that animals can experience disorders such as depression, as found by Seligman and Maier in 1965. Therefore, I think that it is highly important that when conducted research we treat animals as we would treat human beings in order to protect them from harm.

To illustrate my point further, Harlow’s famous study known as the ‘pit of despair’ consisted of baby monkeys, who had already created a bond with their mothers, being separated and kept in a steel isolated chamber for up to one year. Many of the monkeys came out of this study psychotic and some never recovered. But, what I want to ask is if it was human infants that were subjected to such circumstances as in these studies I have mentioned would the scientists and the public act differently, or would they be willing to put them through the emotional distress as easily as they put non-human animals through the distress.

To conclude, I believe that non-human animals are sentient creatures and so should be treated the same as humans when it comes to research that may put their wellbeing and rights are risk.