Anthro Mid-Term Notes PDF

Anthro mid- term notes PART A: MATCHING (10 marks) Key topics: Operational definitions: a carefully worded statement of the exact procedures (operations) used in a research study. Dependent variable: the outcome that the researcher measures to see if it changes due to the independent variable. I...

Anthro mid- term notes PART A: MATCHING (10 marks) Key topics: Operational definitions: a carefully worded statement of the exact procedures (operations) used in a research study. Dependent variable: the outcome that the researcher measures to see if it changes due to the independent variable. It’s the "effect" or result you’re looking for. Independant variable: the factor that the researcher changes or manipulates in an experiment to see its effect. It’s the "cause" or what you’re testing to see how it affects something else. Socialization: The process through which individuals learn and adopt the values, norms, and behaviors appropriate to their society or social group. Roles: The behaviors, obligations, and privileges attached to a status or position in society (e.g., parent, teacher, student). Norms: Expectations or rules of behavior that develop within a society or group. Cognitive dissonance: the mental discomfort or tension that arises when a person holds two conflicting beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors at the same time. Confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or opinions, while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts them. PART B: TRUE OR FALSE (10 marks) Topics: Hypothesis testing and falsifiability Theory: a well-established explanation of some aspect of the world, backed by evidence and repeated testing. In social science, theories provide frameworks for understanding behavior, relationships, or cultural phenomena. Examples include Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development or Freud's Psychoanalytic Theory. Hypothesis: a specific, testable prediction derived from a theory. It proposes a relationship between two or more variables that can be confirmed or rejected through research. For instance, if a researcher hypothesizes that "teenagers who spend more time on social media have lower self-esteem," they can design a study to test this prediction.  - A good, scientific theory produces testable predictions called hypotheses - Such predictions specify which results would support the theory and which results would disconfirm it. - The falsifiability of a hypothesis is a mark of its scientific strength (i.e., can it be proven false?). Cognitive biases (e.g., hindsight bias): Hindsight bias: - The tendency to believe, after an event has occurred, that the outcome was predictable or inevitable, even if there was no clear way to foresee it beforehand. - This bias often leads people to think they "knew it all along" when, in reality, they are reconstructing their memories based on the outcome. - It can distort how we understand past events and influence future decision-making. Overconfidence: - We humans tend to think we know more than we do. - Our confidence often drives us to quick - rather than correct - thinking. Confirmation bias - the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or opinions, while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts them. - This bias can lead people to focus only on information that supports their views, making them less open to opposing perspectives and more resistant to changing their opinions, even when faced with strong evidence to the contrary Cognitive dissonance: - Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort or tension that arises when a person holds two conflicting beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors at the same time. - To reduce this discomfort, people often try to change one of the conflicting beliefs or rationalize their behavior to align with their beliefs. Perceiving patterns in random events. - Random sequences often do not look random. - In random sequences, patterns and repeating digits (“streaks” or “hot streaks”) occur more often than people expect. - It is also hard for people to generate random-like sequences. Behaviorism vs. other psychological schools of thought Research concepts (e.g., placebo effect, longitudinal studies) PART C: MULTIPLE CHOICE (20 marks) Example topics: Naturalistic observation: - Researchers observe subjects in their natural environment without interference. This method provides insights into real-world behavior, but it can be difficult to control for external variables. For instance, observing how children interact on a playground without introducing any manipulation would be a naturalistic observation. Ethical principles: 1. Informed Consent: Participants must be fully aware of the nature of the research and agree to participate voluntarily. This includes knowing the purpose, risks, and benefits of the study. 2. Privacy and Confidentiality: Researchers must protect participants' personal information and ensure that their identities are kept confidential. This is especially important in sensitive areas of study, like mental health or criminal behavior. 3. Avoiding Harm: Researchers must ensure that participants are not exposed to physical or psychological harm during or after the study. If there is any risk of harm, participants must be informed, and precautions must be taken to minimize risk. 4. Debriefing: After the study, participants should be informed about the true purpose of the research, especially if deception was used. Researchers must offer a full explanation and provide any necessary support. 5. Respect for Vulnerable Groups: Special care must be taken when conducting research with vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities. Researchers must ensure that these participants are treated with extra care and respect. *Ethics ensure that research is conducted responsibly, balancing the need for knowledge with the rights and dignity of participants. Cognitive biases: Hindsight bias: - The tendency to believe, after an event has occurred, that the outcome was predictable or inevitable, even if there was no clear way to foresee it beforehand.  - This bias often leads people to think they "knew it all along" when, in reality, they are reconstructing their memories based on the outcome. - It can distort how we understand past events and influence future decision-making. Overconfidence - We humans tend to think we know more than we do. - Our confidence often drives us to quick - rather than correct - thinking Confirmation bias - the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or opinions, while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts them. - This bias can lead people to focus only on information that supports their views, making them less open to opposing perspectives and more resistant to changing their opinions, even when faced with strong evidence to the contrary Cognitive dissonance: - Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort or tension that arises when a person holds two conflicting beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors at the same time. - To reduce this discomfort, people often try to change one of the conflicting beliefs or rationalize their behavior to align with their beliefs. Perceiving patterns in random events. - Random sequences often do not look random. - In random sequences, patterns and repeating digits (“streaks” or “hot streaks”) occur more often than people expect. - It is also hard for people to generate random-like sequences. Key studies: The Milgram experiment: The experiment: - Participants were led to believe that they were taking part in an experiment on learning and memory - An actor played the role of a “learner”, and the participant was assigned the role of a “teacher” who would administer shocks to them  - Whenever the learner made a mistake on a task, the teacher was instructed to shock them, and each time they increased, the last one being lethal - Whenever the participant hesitated, a researcher dressed in a labcoat would tell them to continue Findings: - 65 % of the participants were willing to administer the shocks - The study was influenced by the holocaust - This work helped to explain some of the psychological processes that might contribute to atrocities in situations like the Holocaust, emphasizing the power of situational factors and authority figures in influencing behavior. - The experiment also raised serious ethical concerns. Participants were exposed to significant emotional distress, believing they were causing real harm.. Factors making participants more likely to resist authority: - being close to the learner - when the experimenter was not in the room - if they were in the company of people who didn’t continue - if the authority figure appeared less legitimate - if the participants were reminded it was there fault for the harm caused - if the harm caused was unclear, - if the situation was less stressful and they had more time to think The murder of Kittie Genovese and the bystander effect The experiment: - In 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered by being brutally attacked near her apartment in queens, new York - 38 Neighbors heard or witnessed the attack but none of them intervened or helped - Psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané were inspired by this story to study why people sometimes fail to help others in emergencies, especially in public settings where other bystanders are present. - They developed the bystander effect which suggest that the likeliness that someone will help decreases when there are other people around - They conducted a series of experiments to test this - participants were placed in separate rooms and could only communicate via an intercom. During the experiment, one "participant" (actually a recorded voice) would pretend to have a seizure, asking for help. When participants thought they were the  only ones who could hear the person in distress, they were much more likely to offer help immediately. However, when they believed others were also listening, they were slower to respond or sometimes didn't respond at all. Findings: - The bystander effect has since been widely studied and used to explain behavior in various contexts, including accidents, bullying, and emergency situations, and has even led to educational campaigns encouraging people to take responsibility and intervene when they witness someone in need. Factors reducing the likelihood of the bystander effect - When a bystander is directly asked to help or has a personal connection - When fewer people are present - If they are “deserving of assistance” - If they identify or empathize the person in need - When one person steps in to help - People who are unaware of the bystander effect - When they feel capable of helping (CPR, first aid training) - If the situation is highly dangerous or severe Asch conformity experiment: Experiment - Participants were told they were participating in a "vision test." - Each participant was placed in a room with a group of people (usually seven to nine) who were actually in on the experiment - Only one person in each session was a true participant, unaware of the others’ roles. The group was shown two cards. One card had a single line, while the other had three lines of different lengths labeled A, B, and C. - Participants were asked to identify which of the three lines matched the length of the line on the first card. The correct answer was typically obvious. - The participant was seated in such a way that they responded after most or all of the confederates had already given their answers. - This meant they would often hear several people provide an incorrect answer before it was their turn to respond. Findings: - 75% of participants conformed to the group at least once during the experiment - 32% of participants conformed on the majority of the critical trials.  - However, 25% of participants consistently gave the correct answer, resisting group influence. - The Asch conformity experiments provided strong evidence that people often conform to group norms, even when they believe the group is wrong. Asch’s findings showed that social pressure can lead people to go against their own perceptions and judgments, illustrating the powerful role of conformity in human behavior. Factors Influencing Conformity - Conformity increased with the size of the group when the group was smaller - The person who said the actual correct answer made it more likely to conform - When the difference in line length was more subtle, conformity rates increased. - When participants were allowed to write their answers privately instead of stating them out loud, conformity dropped dramatically. Harlow monkey experiment Experiment: - Harlow conducted his experiments using rhesus monkeys, separating infant monkeys from their mothers shortly after birth. - Each infant was placed in a cage with two types of surrogate mothers: - The Wire Mother: This surrogate was made from wire and provided milk through an attached feeding bottle. - The Cloth Mother: This surrogate was soft, covered in terry cloth, and designed to provide a sense of warmth and comfort, but it did not offer any food. - Harlow observed which surrogate the infant monkeys would choose and how they would interact with each type under different conditions. Findings: - Harlow found that, even though the wire mother provided milk, the infant monkeys spent most of their time clinging to the cloth mother. This finding demonstrated that the need for emotional security and physical comfort was more powerful than the need for food in forming attachments. - In another part of the experiment, Harlow introduced frightening stimuli (like a mechanical toy) into the cage. When the monkeys were frightened, they would run to the cloth mother for comfort. This suggested that the presence of a comforting figure provided the monkeys with a “secure base,” enabling them to explore more confidently and manage stress.  - Harlow conducted additional studies where some monkeys were raised in isolation without any kind of surrogate. These isolated monkeys exhibited severe emotional and social problems later in life. This indicated the severe developmental impact of being deprived of early attachment and comfort. - Harlow demonstrated that attachment is rooted in emotional security and the need for comfort, laying the foundation for what would become attachment theory in developmental psychology. Ethical concerns: - The isolation of monkeys and the use of surrogate mothers caused the animals distress, and many of the monkeys experienced lasting psychological harm. - The ethical concerns raised by Harlow’s work have led to stricter guidelines for animal research, especially in studies involving social deprivation or psychological harm. Banduras bobo doll experiment Experiment - Bandura and his colleagues conducted the study with a group of preschool-aged children at Stanford University’s nursery school. - The children were divided into groups, with each group exposed to different conditions: 1. Children in this group observed an adult model acting aggressively toward a Bobo doll, a large inflatable toy that bounces back when hit. 2. Children observed an adult model playing quietly and peacefully with other toys, ignoring the Bobo doll altogether. 3. This group of children was not exposed to any adult model. - After observing the model, each child was taken individually to a playroom filled with a variety of toys, including a Bobo doll, mallets, and other aggressive and non-aggressive toys. - The researchers observed the children’s behavior, specifically noting whether they imitated the aggressive actions they had observed. Findings - The results showed that children who had observed the aggressive model were much more likely to act aggressively toward the Bobo doll than those in the non-aggressive or control groups.  - Additionally, Bandura found that boys were generally more aggressive than girls, but both boys and girls were more likely to act aggressively if they had observed an aggressive model. - Furthermore, if the model was of the same gender as the child, imitation was even stronger, indicating that children might be more inclined to model behaviors from individuals they identify with. - Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment demonstrated that children can learn and adopt new behaviors simply by observing others, even without direct reinforcement or punishment. This supported Bandura’s social learning theory, which argues that much of human behavior is acquired through observation and imitation rather than through direct experience alone. The visual cliff experiment: Experiment: - designed to investigate depth perception in infants and young animals. It was first conducted by Eleanor Gibson and Richard Walk in 1960. - The experiment involves a table covered with a solid transparent surface, such as Plexiglas, that spans two sections: 1. Shallow Side: Underneath the Plexiglas, the table is covered with a high-contrast patterned surface directly beneath it. 2. Deep Side: The same patterned surface is placed farther below the Plexiglas, creating the illusion of a "cliff" or drop-off. - the visual effect makes it appear as though part of the table ends in a steep drop. - An infant, typically around 6 to 14 months old, is placed on the center of the Plexiglas table. - The child's caregiver stands on the far side of the table, encouraging the child to crawl toward them. - Researchers observe whether the child crosses over the "deep side" or hesitates at the perceived edge. - The experiment has also been extended to animals like chicks, kittens, and goats, with similar findings, reinforcing the notion that depth perception is an adaptive trait for avoiding danger. Findings:  - Most infants hesitated or refused to crawl over the deep side, even though it was physically safe, indicating that they could perceive the depth and interpreted the drop as a potential danger. - Some would crawl over the deep side without hesitation. - Infants as young as 6 months demonstrate the ability to perceive depth. - Crawling and exploring their environment likely help infants refine their depth perception and fear of heights. - Studies later incorporated caregiver facial expressions and found that infants were more likely to cross the cliff if their caregiver smiled reassuringly, highlighting the importance of social referencing in decision-making. The Salley Anne test The experiment: - The Sally–Anne Test is a psychological experiment used to assess theory of mind—the ability to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions different from one's own. - The test involves a simple story enacted with two characters, typically represented by dolls or drawings: 1. Sally: Has a basket. 2. Anne: Has a box. - Sally places a marble in her basket and then leaves the room. While Sally is gone, Anne takes the marble from the basket and places it in her box. Sally then returns. - The child is asked:"Where will Sally look for the marble?" - Sally will look in her basket, because that is where she left the marble and she does not know that Anne moved it. - This requires the child to recognize that Sally holds a false belief—she doesn’t know the marble has been moved. Findings: Children under 4 years old: Typically fail the test, answering that Sally will look in Anne’s box. This suggests they do not yet understand that Sally’s knowledge is different from their own.  Children aged 4 and older: Usually pass the test, correctly answering that Sally will look in her basket. This indicates they have developed theory of mind. Children with ASD: Tend to struggle with the test even beyond the typical age of development, indicating challenges in understanding others' perspectives. The mirror self-recognition test Experiment: - The Mirror Test, also known as the Mirror Self-Recognition Test (MSR), is an experiment designed to assess self-awareness in animals and young children - It was developed by psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr. in 1970. - The test evaluates whether an individual can recognize themselves in a mirror, which is considered a sign of self-recognition and a foundational component of self-awareness. - Introduction to the Mirror: a. The subject (animal or human) is introduced to a mirror in their environment. Researchers observe whether the subject reacts to the reflection as if it were another individual (e.g., displaying aggression or curiosity). - The Mark Test: b. A visible, odorless mark is placed on a part of the subject's body that they cannot see without a mirror (e.g., their forehead or face). c. The subject is then given access to the mirror. - Behavior Observed: d. If the subject notices the mark on their reflection and then touches or investigates the corresponding area on their own body, it is interpreted as evidence that they recognize the reflection as themselves. - Pass: - The subject understands that the reflection in the mirror is their own image. - They may touch or examine the marked area on their body rather than interacting with the reflection. - Fail: - The subject does not recognize the reflection as themselves. - They may ignore the mark, behave as if the reflection is another individual, or show no interest in the mirror. Findings: - Species that Pass the Test: Great apes (e.g., chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos, and gorillas, though not all individuals), Elephants, Dolphins and some whales, Magpies (a type of bird), Humans (typically from 18-24 months of age). - Species that Typically Fail: Most monkeys, Cats, dogs, and other animals.  - Passing the mirror test indicates a level of cognitive sophistication, suggesting the presence of self-awareness. - Human infants typically begin to pass the test between 18 and 24 months, aligning with other markers of self-awareness, like using personal pronouns (e.g., "I" or "me"). - The test challenges assumptions about intelligence and self-perception across species, sparking debates about consciousness in non-human animals. Change blindness Change blindness: a psychological phenomenon where individuals fail to notice large changes in a visual scene, especially when those changes occur during a visual disruption, such as a brief obscuration, a flicker, or a quick movement. How It Happens: Change blindness occurs because humans do not process or store every detail of a visual scene. Instead, our brains prioritize extracting meaningful information. If attention is not specifically directed at the changing aspect of the scene, the change can go unnoticed. Real-World Example: A researcher might ask a person for directions, then briefly obscure their view (e.g., by having someone walk between them carrying a door) and swap places with another person. Many people do not notice that the original person has been replaced. Why It Happens - People typically only attend to certain aspects of a scene, such as objects that are important or moving. Changes outside the focus of attention are less likely to be noticed. - Humans have a limited capacity for storing visual details in short-term memory, so subtle or unexpected changes can escape detection. - People often assume that the environment remains stable, which reduces their vigilance for changes. - Brief disruptions or blinks during a transition in a scene can prevent the brain from encoding the "before" state, making it difficult to notice differences. Experiments Demonstrating Change Blindness Simons and Levin (1998): In their famous study, a researcher asking for directions was swapped with another person during a brief visual disruption. Many participants failed to notice the switch.  Flicker Task: Participants view two versions of the same scene alternating with a blank screen, with small differences (e.g., a missing object). This setup reveals how challenging it can be to detect changes. The marshmallow test Experiment: - a famous psychological experiment that explores inhibition, self-control, and delayed gratification. It was originally conducted by psychologist Walter Mischel and his colleagues in the late 1960s and early 1970s at Stanford University. - The study aimed to investigate how well children could resist temptation to achieve a greater reward later, and how this ability might relate to later life outcomes like academic success, health, and social functioning. 1. Setup: a. A child is seated in a room with a single marshmallow (or another preferred treat) placed in front of them on a table. b. The experimenter explains that the child can either: i. Eat the marshmallow immediately. ii. Wait until the experimenter returns (usually after 15 minutes) and receive two marshmallows as a reward. 2. The Task: a. The child is left alone in the room with the marshmallow. b. Hidden cameras observe the child's behavior during the waiting period. Findings: - Covering their eyes or turning away. - Talking to themselves or singing. - Fidgeting or playing with their hands. - Smelling the marshmallow or pretending to eat it without actually taking a bite. - Some children resisted the temptation and waited, while others ate the marshmallow before the experimenter returned. - Children who were able to wait longer demonstrated better self-regulation and inhibitory control. - Follow-up studies suggested that children who delayed gratification performed better in areas like: Academic success (higher SAT scores), Better emotional regulation, Healthier body mass index (BMI), Stronger social relationships. The strange situation Experiment: - a structured observational method developed by Mary Ainsworth in the 1970s to study attachment styles in infants. It assesses how infants react to separations and reunions with their caregiver in a novel environment, helping identify the quality of attachment. - Focuses on how infants respond to separation and reunion to classify attachment styles. - The experiment takes place in a laboratory setting, typically involving children aged 12– 18 months. The situation unfolds in eight stages, each lasting about 3 minutes: 1. The caregiver and infant enter a room with toys (exploration encouraged). 2. A stranger enters, interacts with the caregiver, and then approaches the infant. 3. The caregiver leaves the infant alone with the stranger. 4. The caregiver returns, and the stranger leaves (reunion #1). 5. The caregiver leaves the infant alone in the room (brief separation). 6. The stranger returns and interacts with the infant. 7. The caregiver returns again, and the stranger leaves (reunion #2). Findings: Many different outcomes: - Child is upset when the caregiver leaves but is quickly comforted upon their return, which Reflects trust in the caregiver’s availability and responsiveness. - Child shows little distress when the caregiver leaves and avoids them upon return, which suggests emotional detachment or a lack of reliance on the caregiver. a. Child is very distressed by separation and shows mixed reactions (seeking and resisting comfort) upon return, which ndicates inconsistent caregiving, leading to anxiety and uncertainty b. Child exhibits confused or contradictory behaviors, often associated with fear or trauma in the caregiving relationship. The Still Face Experiment Experiment: - designed by Edward Tronick in 1975, examines the impact of caregiver responsiveness (or lack thereof) on an infant’s emotional and social development. - Emphasizes the immediate emotional impact of caregiver unresponsiveness on an infant. 1. Baseline Interaction: a. A caregiver (usually the mother) interacts with the infant, engaging in normal, playful behaviors like smiling and cooing.  2. Still Face Phase: a. The caregiver suddenly stops responding, maintaining a neutral, expressionless face for about 2 minutes. 3. Reunion Phase: a. The caregiver resumes interacting normally with the infant. Findings: - During the still face phase, infants typically: Try to re-engage the caregiver through smiles, gestures, or vocalizations, Show signs of stress, such as frowning, crying, or turning away, and Appear increasingly distressed if the caregiver remains unresponsive. - When the caregiver resumes normal interaction, infants usually recover, though some may remain distressed. - Infants are highly sensitive to caregiver responsiveness. A lack of response disrupts their sense of security and connection. - Repeated experiences of unresponsiveness can hinder emotional and social development. - The experiment highlights the importance of attuned caregiving in forming secure attachments Anchoring effect Anchoring: a cognitive bias in persuasion and decision-making where individuals rely heavily on the first piece of information they receive (the "anchor") when making decisions. This initial value acts as a reference point, influencing subsequent judgments or estimations, even if the anchor is arbitrary or unrelated to the final decision. How Anchoring Works 1. The Anchor: a. The first number, fact, or piece of information presented in a situation becomes the mental "anchor." b. Even when individuals try to adjust their decisions away from the anchor, their adjustments are often insufficient, leaving the anchor disproportionately influential. 2. Decision Making: a. Once the anchor is set, it biases how people interpret and evaluate additional information, leading them to make decisions closer to the anchor than they otherwise would. Examples of Anchoring 1. Negotiation: a. In salary discussions, the first number mentioned (e.g., a company’s offer or an employee’s ask) often serves as the anchor. Subsequent counteroffers tend to be influenced by this initial figure. 2. Sales and Pricing: a. A product might be listed at $100 but marked down to $50. The original $100 price becomes the anchor, making $50 seem like a great deal, even if the actual value is less. 3. Estimations: a. If asked whether the Eiffel Tower is taller or shorter than 1,000 feet (anchor), people will estimate closer to that number than they would without the anchor. 4. Legal Settings: a. In courtrooms, initial damage claims or sentencing suggestions can anchor jury or judge decisions, even if those suggestions are later revealed to be exaggerated. Bystander effect: The bystander effect: the likeliness that someone will help decreases when there are other people around - Psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané were inspired by the story of Kitty Genovese to study why people sometimes fail to help others in emergencies, especially in public settings where other bystanders are present. - They developed the bystander effect Placebo effect: The placebo effect: when people experience a real change in their condition because they believe they are receiving treatment, even though the treatment has no actual active ingredients. The effect is caused by their expectations, not the treatment itself. - An intervention may cause an effect simply because people expect it to work, even if the intervention itself doesn't have any real impact. This is related to the placebo effect, where people experience changes (like feeling better) just because they believe they are receiving a treatment, even if it's inactive, like a sugar pill. The belief alone can trigger a real response in the body or mind. Within-subject vs. between-group design Between-subjects design means that different groups of participants are used for each condition of the experiment. Each group experiences only one condition. Within-subjects design means that the same participants take part in all conditions of the experiment. Part D: Communication & Application (Written Responses: 70 marks) Reflect on real-world applications of psychological theories and research methods. Example prompts: o Examples of the anchoring effect in real-life o What can be done about the bystander effect in real-life? o Designing experiments to address empirical questions. o Formulating plans to influence/change behaviour using Bandura, Asch, and the anchoring effect in real-life