bio approach-2.A brain & behaviour Flashcards
1. Phillips and LeDoux (1992)
Generalisability: Low – the study used rats, so the findings may not fully apply to humans. While rats and humans share some brain structures, human emotions and behaviors are more complex.
Reliability: High – it was a lab experiment with strict controls, making it easy to replicate and test again.
Applicability: High – the findings help us understand how the brain processes fear, which can be useful for treating anxiety disorders or PTSD.
Validity: Low ecological validity – the lab setting was artificial, and fear conditioning in rats may not fully reflect how humans experience fear in real life.
Ethics: Ethical concerns arise because animals were used. However, the researchers likely followed ethical guidelines (e.g., the “3 Rs”: Reduce, Replace, Refine harm to animals).
Strength: Provides clear evidence of the roles of the hippocampus and amygdala in fear conditioning.
Limitation: Oversimplifies fear by focusing only on brain structures, ignoring other factors like cognition or environment.
2. Scoville and Milner (1957) & Corkin et al. (1997)
Generalisability: Low – HM was a single case study, so his unique brain damage makes it hard to generalize to others.
Reliability: High – multiple tests (interviews, cognitive tasks, MRI scans) were used, making the findings consistent and robust.
Applicability: High – the study helped us understand how the hippocampus is crucial for forming long-term memories, which is useful for treating memory disorders.
Validity: High internal validity – the use of MRI scans provided clear evidence of brain damage. However, low ecological validity because HM’s condition was rare and extreme.
Ethics: Ethical concerns about consent, as HM couldn’t remember giving it. However, his caretakers provided consent, and his identity was protected.
Strength: Provided groundbreaking insights into the role of the hippocampus in memory.
Limitation: Hard to generalize findings to people with normal brain function.
3. Crockett (2010)
Generalisability: Moderate – the sample size was small (24 participants), and the study focused on serotonin, which may not apply to everyone.
Reliability: High – the repeated measures design and controlled lab conditions make it easy to replicate.
Applicability: High – the findings help us understand how serotonin influences moral decisions, which could be useful for treating mood disorders or antisocial behavior.
Validity: Low ecological validity – the moral scenarios and ultimatum game were hypothetical and artificial.
Ethics: Ethical concerns about altering brain chemistry, but participants were informed and their safety was ensured.
Strength: Shows a clear link between serotonin and prosocial behavior.
Limitation: The tasks lacked real-world relevance, so the findings may not apply to everyday moral decisions.
4. Baumgartner et al. (2008)
Generalisability: Moderate – the sample size was decent (49 participants), but the trust game in an fMRI scanner may not reflect real-life trust.
Reliability: High – the use of fMRI and controlled conditions makes it replicable.
Applicability: High – the findings help us understand how oxytocin influences trust, which could be useful for treating social anxiety or trust issues.
Validity: Low ecological validity – the trust game was artificial and played in a lab setting.
Ethics: No major ethical issues, as participants were informed and no harm was caused.
Strength: Used fMRI to show how oxytocin affects brain activity during trust interactions.
Limitation: The trust game lacked real-world relevance, so findings may not apply to everyday trust situations.
5. Feinstein et al. (2011)
Generalisability: Low – SM’s case was unique due to her rare amygdala damage, so findings may not apply to others.
Reliability: High – multiple tests (interviews, exposure to fear stimuli) were used, making the findings consistent.
Applicability: High – the study helps us understand the amygdala’s role in fear, which is useful for treating anxiety or PTSD.
Validity: High internal validity – clear evidence of SM’s inability to feel fear. However, low ecological validity because her condition was extreme.
Ethics: Ethical concerns about exposing SM to fear-inducing situations, but she gave informed consent.
Strength: Provides clear evidence of the amygdala’s role in fear.
Limitation: Hard to generalize findings to people with normal brain function.
6. Holzel et al. (2010)
Generalisability: Low – the sample size was small (16 participants), so findings may not apply to everyone.
Reliability: High – the use of MRI scans and a control group makes the study replicable.
Applicability: High – the findings show how mindfulness can change the brain, which is useful for treating stress, anxiety, or depression.
Validity: High internal validity – MRI scans provided clear evidence of brain changes. However, low ecological validity because the mindfulness program was short and controlled.
Ethics: Ethical concerns about denying the control group access to the mindfulness program.
Strength: Shows how mindfulness can lead to neuroplasticity (brain changes).
Limitation: Small sample size limits generalizability.
7. Maguire et al. (2000)
Generalisability: Moderate – the study focused on London taxi drivers, so findings may not apply to everyone.
Reliability: High – the use of MRI scans and a control group makes the study replicable.
Applicability: High – the findings show how the brain adapts to environmental demands, which is useful for understanding learning and memory.
Validity: High ecological validity – the study used real-world taxi drivers in a natural setting.
Ethics: No major ethical issues, as participants were informed and no harm was caused.
Strength: Provides clear evidence of neuroplasticity in response to environmental demands.
Limitation: Small sample size (16 taxi drivers) limits generalizability.
