PSYC 1103 1st Edition Lecture 3Outline of Last Lecture:I. Is psychology a science?i. Active dreaming exampleII. Psychology: A DefinitionIII. Psychology: SubfieldsIV. Case StudiesV. Brief History of Psychologyi. Additive DecompositionOutline of Current Lecture:VI. Brief History of Psychology (continued)VII. Research MethodsVIII. Research DesignsIX. Experiment: Facial FeedbackX. Experimental IssuesXI. Correlational Study: TV and MortalityCurrent Lecture:I. Brief History of Psychology (continued)Sigmund Freud (continued)- Humans and animals want immediate gratification; however as humans oursocial structures and way of life make it more delayed gratification (ex: we mustwait in lines for things)- The Iceberg of Personality exampleo Bottom of Iceberg = Id. This is the driving force behind personality; alwaysafter wantso Middle of iceberg = Superego. This is antithesis to the id. It is aninternalization of moral societal standards.o Top of iceberg = ego. The part of you that feels most like you. It’s aboveconsciousness; you’re aware if this. William James (late 1800s)- Contemporary of Darwin (both influenced each other)- Powerful thinker; debunked others’ bad ideas- Functionalismo Not structure; care more about the function of the mindo How do mental processes help us adapt? (ex: remembering people, food,etc.)Behaviorism- Try to make psych a science in a formal way- Emphasis on learning- Outlaw reference to internal processes - Only looks at observable things like behavior- John Watson; BF Skinnero Contingencies Watson said think of things as contingencies, so eventto event.(ex: conditioning a little kid to be scared of something he/she isnormally not afraid of using a loud noise) Skinner added on to this saying behaviorfollowed by reward.Punishment could also be used in place.Research Methods- Research Designo Design what it is you’re going to doo Organize it so you can make the best answers for your research question- Research toolso Instruments, techniques used to collect datao Lots of technology to get at people’s emotions, attitudes, etc. Low tech: surveys High tech: involves physiology technology like skin sensors- Research Analysiso Statistical techniques for extracting structure from dataResearch Designs- Experiments (strongest case you can make for causality)o Manipulate independent variable (I.V)o Random assignment (of participants to the IV)o Control groupso GOAL: ASSERT CAUSALITY- Correlational Studieso Measure 2+ dependent variables (D.V.)o Subject variables (ex: gender, where born, age, etc.)o Statistical control (control for other factors like gender)o GOAL: ASSESS RELATIONSHIPS- Observational Studieso Measure 1+ D.V.’so Exploratoryo No controlso While doing this, if you realize your 2+ observations are correlational, itmoves to become a correlational studyo GOAL: IDENTIFY PHENOMENONExperiment: Facial feedback- Hypothesis: feedback from body is the source of emotional experience- Strack et al. asked participants to hold a pencil in their mouth. The way they holdit uses the “happy” or “sad” facial muscleso Teeth condition (“happy” muscles)o Lips condition (“sad” muscles)o Hands (control) condition- Rated a series of cartoons (mildly amusing)(D.V)o Mean funniness rating measuredo More funny teeth groupo Somewhat funnyhand groupo Not funnylips groupExperimental Issues- External validity how it relates to realityo Generalizability  can you generalize to all situations?- Internal validity  what structure of experiment is followed well enough that itdelivered proper results?o Confounds  did you accidentally impose an additional change besidesthe one intended? Experimenter bias experimenter wanting something to happenso it does happen that way- Rosenthal’s maze-bright/maze-dull rats example. Toldcollege kids running the experiments which rats werebright or dull, but in reality there was no difference in therats; they’re just rats. But the results turned out that the“smart” ones could solve the maze faster than the “dull”ones. It was the little things inadvertently done (like thehandling of the rats) that could’ve affected this outcome- Participant bias participant can guess or knows what’ssupposed to happen so it happens inadvertently o Placebo effectso Eippert scan of spinal cord  heat applied toforearm; spinal neural activity reduced in placebogroup- Double Blind studiesCorrelational Study: TV and Mortality- Hypothesis: TV viewing is related to risk of death- Dunstan et al. used data from AusDib (Australia Diabetes)o 8,800 healthy participants; mean age = 50 yearso followed for roughly 7 years- Looked like positive correlation in data, but it could be that sedentary peoplewatch TV more and sedentary people also are more at risk for early death…sohow effective is TV in this after