Operant Conditioning: STICKERS!!

In a few of my classes during grade school we had a sticker sheet system. Every time we received an A on a quiz or test we got a sicker. And once we filled up our sheet with however many stickers we needed, we were rewarded with extra credit. This specific operant conditioning was positive reinforcement because we were rewarded for doing well on our tests. I knew this system was to encourage us to study so that we would do well in the class, but what I didn't know was that it effected how I strived to achieve in other classes. I acknowledged my study habits for that specific class and then applied them to my other classes so that I could do just as well.

Split Pea Soup and Classical Conditioning

This is a very less traumatic experience, but still a core example of classical conditioning. I know of a girl whom as a child loved split pea soup. One day she was eating split pea soup, and then soon after threw it up because of the stomach flu. Since then, she couldn't look at or think about split pea soup without feeling terribly queasy.  It took her more than 10 years until she could even begin to consider eating split pea soup again, and today she will only eat it if it is given to her. In this example, the girl had a positive feeling towards split pea soup. It wasn't until she went through the traumatic experience of throwing up after eating the soup that she began to associate that awful queasy feeling with split pea soup.

Subliminal Persuasion

 1.  Of the five factors mentioned in the Pratkanis report, which one do you think is the strongest explanation for why people fall "victim" to so-called subliminal influence.  Explain why.

I believe the strongest explanation would be belief of a powerful unconscious. When at a loss for an explanation of ones actions, It is easiest to claim that the motives came from an unconscious force. This explanation connects all the dots without having to find real evidence- which makes it convincing. 

2.  Which factor do you think is the weakest of Pratkanis' arguments?  Explain why.

I find the weakest factor to be that subliminal persuasion is an irrational force uncontrollable by the recipient. This idea just illustrates ones lack of self control. The idea of an "uncontrollable force" in this instance is merely an excuse for one's gluttony.

3.  Do you believe subliminal advertising exists?  Have Pratkanis influenced your opinion.  Why or why not?

I believe subliminal advertising exists- but not to a full extent. Pratikanis brought my attention to the tactics used but he did not change my opinion of them. I believe a person with less knowledge of a specific subject might be more susceptible to subliminal influence than another with a better understanding of the given subject. it has the power to influence perceptions but can not completely change them/control them.

Sensation and Perception

1. Sensation- detected information from our sensory organs sent to the brain
Perception- Bringing meaning to the information signaled in our brain through interpretation and organization
2. This may be confusing to students because it can be hard to detach the association of a perception with its sensation. To remember the difference, Think of a Sensation as your friend and a Perception as your friend's friend. Sensation occurs on its own, whereas perception requires sensation to be present. You only know Perception through your friend, Sensation.
3. Sensation and Perception can be compared to a foreign word and it's definition. A foreign word just by itself is an abstract grouping of information of characters and sounds, but when it is interpreted by a language you understand, the word is suddenly given meaning. A way to find the word's meaning can be by looking at its root words or by translating it to another language. This would be using bottom-up processing. Top-down processing can be described by knowing a definition and from there figuring out  the word which it accompanies.

Phony Phrenology

Phrenology is the archaic science relating ones character and mental abilities to the shape and size of their head. It was believed that the brain is divided into many sections, each holding a specific characteristic or ability like wit, memorization and faithfulness. During the 1800's when phrenology was widely accepted, the workings of the human brain and body were little known, which made this science easily justifiable and therefore could not be falsified. In this case, the confirmation bias is very powerful. There was no way to prove the theory wrong, so there was no reason not to believe it. The idea of phrenology is very appealing because it gives humans the ability to identify an honest man, from a liar by the shape of his or her skull. So without any evidence stating otherwise, who wouldn't want to be able to confirm it to be true? Humans are pattern-seeking primates searching for meaning in the world. It's hard for us not to jump to conclusions, especially when we don't have all the information. Although phrenology was failed attempt to uncover the inner workings of our brain, it put psychologists on the right path and also taught us that appearance and character have nothing to do with each other.

Nature Vs. Nurture and Blue Eyes

To think that the color of one's eyes, other than brown is a gene mutation is completely fascinating. It's so cool to think that beauty marks, freckles, and blue eyes are all "flaws" in our genetic code, and these flaws are what we consider beautiful. It's actually a great topic for an inspirational speech about loving who you are, because its true! our flaws are what make us beautiful. They separate us from one another, making unique individuals.

Both genetics and our environment have an effect on our behavior and mental processes. Now although I believe the percentage difference varies on how much either genetics or our environment effects our mental processes and behavior, I've come to the conclusion that genetics always influences us the most at about 80% versus our environment, around 20%.  I watched an interview on identical twins who were separated at birth and put up for adoption but then in their 30s reconnected. (on a side note, they were separated for a study on nature vs. nurture. At the time this was considered unethical but not illegal. Now, adoption agencies require siblings to stay together) Even though they grew up in completely different environments, they both dealt with depression at the same time in their lives, they were both editors of their high school newspaper and they both went to film school. Not only that but they also share a lot of the same mannerisms! When it comes to environmental influences, relationships we have and events we experiences can drastically change our path in life, but they don't determine our behavior and mental processes. For example, conformity. By conforming, you are behaving in a way to   abide by the rules. But you aren't changing your mental processes, you are just acting. This behavior might show someones innate characteristic of following a group, rather than leading. Which might have to do with natural selection and survival skills. This persons tendency to confirm might have to do with their inability to lead because they are less aggressive or ambitious. (Now I am just starting to ramble) OK. To (somehow) bring it all together, we are all on a journey and the obstacles along the way are the environmental factors which challenge our mental person, bringing out who we really are which is in our genetics.

Ethics, Animal Rights, and the Use of Torture

When humans are a subject of research I believe ethics should be a priority. As a kid we are taught to "treat others the way you would like to be treated," and in psychological research I believe this is still highly relevant. While studying obedience in humans, Stanley Milgram caused psychological harm to his patients which then carried on after the experiment was over. Being unethical in psychological research is really just a selfish act. It is disregarding the risk you are putting humans at to get what you want. The cost-benefit analysis should not be considered because the suffering of the patient is not resolved through the benefit of the experiment. There is no cancelation.  In regards to deception, ethics should still be a priority. I believe that there is not a problem with deception when there is consent from the patients and then they go through thorough debriefing.

In the use of animals in psychological experiments, keeping it ethical should also be a priority, but when the main reason for using animals is for a humans benefit, I believe it is less of an importance as long as there is not purposeful harm. There are too many positives in using animals in research to further the understanding of humans to cancel any possibilities of harm.

Just as I believe that ethics should be a priority is psychological research, I also believe that it should be priority in interrogation. Torture should not be condoned. It is dehumanizing to the subject individual and is traumatic and potentially post traumatic to both the tortured human and the person preforming the torturous interrogations.