Barkley-Levenson and Galvan Flashcards
What are the theories behind this study?
- ontogenic differences
- adolescents having high activation in ventral striatum - exaggerated neural response
What is the confounding variable?
subjective value of money
What is the research method?
quasi - adult or adolescent NOT manipulated by researcher
what is the design?
independent measures
What is the IV and DV?
IV = adult or adolescent
DV = performance on the mixed games gambling + brain imaging
What is the sample?
- 19 healthy right handed adults
- 22 healthy right handed adolescents
What are some controls of the sample?
no mental illness - that may effect brain activity e.g., schizophrenia = enlarged ventricles
What is the sampling technique?
volunteer - UCLA
What happened before the actual study?
intake session
What happened at the intake session?
- consent forms signed
- familiarised with fMRI - mock scans
- given $20 dollars - reduce house money effect
What is the actual procedure?
- fMRI scan whilst completing the mixed games gambling task
- MGGT = spinner (50/50)
- spinner had one value on one side and another on the other e.g., +$17 on one side and -$5 on the other
- 144 trials
- control trials - win only and loss only
- neural and behavioural responses observed
What are the key findings?
behavioural:
- acceptance rates did not change when no risk involved (control trials)
- high ev = high chance of acceptance response (despite participants being blind to ev) - greater effect on adolescents
neural:
- greater activation in VS of adolescents compared to adults
- no differences when no risk involved
what are the conclusions?
- neural sensitivity changes across development (ontogenic differences)
- adolescents behave similarly to adults when no risk involved
evaluate according to reliability
often standardised = more replicable = reliable
evaluate according to validity
strengths:
- standardised = internal validity
weaknesses:
- lack ecological validity - risk IRL usually more tempting
evaluate according to data
QUAN
strengths:
- objective - easy to analyse and compare
weaknesses:
- no reasoning for behaviour
evaluate according to sample
- culture bias - ethnocentric - Netherlands
- small sample lacks population validity - individual differences
evaluate methodology
labs = high control = more valid = causality BUT not ecologically valid
snapshots = cost effective BUT don’t know long term effects
evaluate according ethics
informed consent obtained, confidentiality, RTW, not deceived BUT socially sensitive - self fulfilling prophecy - long term implications - one positive experience with gambling = encouragement
evaluate usefulness
very useful - people understand why they take risk and interventions can be put in place to prevent further further risk taking
evaluate scientfiic
yes:
- fMRI = falsifiable
- quan data
- reliable
- deterministic = hypotheses = predict behaviour
no:
- samples
- individual differences
evaluate reductionism
scientific, and useful BUT oversimplification = not generalisable to people who don’t take risks
evaluate determinism
can predict behaviour = scientific and useful BUT removes free will to take risks or not - brain functions universal = socially sensitive
evaluate individual vs situational
ignores socia pressures e.g., peer pressure = oversimplification
