Biological Area Flashcards
What are the principles of the biological area?
Our behaviour is affected by our physiology such as genetics, hormones and brain structure and function
Brain structure and functioning impacts on behaviour but can also be influenced by experiences.
What are the key concepts of the biological area?
Use of scientific equipment (e.g MRI)
Brain plasticity
What are the core studies within the biological area?
Blakemore and Cooper
Maguire
Sperry
Casey
What are the strengths of the biological area?
Often high in internal reliability due to the tightly controlled lab conditions
We can establish cause and effect by having tightly controlled lab conditions
What are the weaknesses of the biological area?
Can lack ecological validity as often uses lab experiments
Is often reductionist by only investigating biological causes of behaviour
How useful is the research of the biological area?
Useful for drug therapy treatment for specific discords. For example, SSRIs can be used as a way of treating people with depression and work by increasing the availability of serotonin in the brain’s synapses.
What is the background of Sperry?
In the 1940’s a treatment was developed called ‘Split Brain Surgery’ (called commissurotomy) that included the corpus callosum being cut so that the abnormal electrical impulses could not spread throughout the brain.
What are the aims of Sperry?
To study the functions of separated and independent hemispheres
What is the sample of Sperry?
11 male and female patients who had undergone a commissurotomy to control their symptoms of epilepsy
What is the procedure of Sperry?
Objects were presented in the right and left visual field.
Different visual stimuli were presented simultaneously to different visual fields (e.g. an image of an apple to the left vf; an image of a key to the right visual field), and the participant was asked to draw with his left hand (out of sight) what he had seen
Simple mathematical problems were presented to the left visual field. A nude pin-up was presented to the left visual field
Objects were felt by the right hand only (unseen by the participant)
Objects were felt by the left hand only (unseen by the participant)
What are the results of Sperry?
Split brain patients could name the object flashed to the right visual field but not if flashed to the left visual field. But could point towards the object and identifying it from an array of objects
What are the conclusions of Sperry?
Left hemisphere can communicate anything from the right visual field, or experiences of the right side of the body.
Right hemisphere can process mathematical/spatial information.
Left hemisphere can communicate anything from the right visual field, or experiences of the right side of the body
Right hemisphere can show NON-VERBALLY that mental processes from left visual field and left side of body are present
What was the research method in Sperry?
Quasi-Experiment
How does Sperry relate to the biological area?
Sperry’s study falls within the biological area as it is investigating regions of the brain and lateralisation of brain function. Specifically, it demonstrated the importance of the corpus callosum as a communication pathway between the left and right hemispheres and provided evidence of the different functions each hemisphere performs
How does Sperry relate to the key theme?
In relation to the key theme of regions of the brain, Sperry’s study sheds light on the function of the corpus callosum as a communication pathway between the two hemispheres was made evident in this study.
How is Sperry valid?
The findings of the study would be unlikely to be reproduced in a real-life situation, however, or to have any impact in real life, because a person with a severed corpus callosum who had both eyes open would be able to compensate. Therefore, the study lacks ecological validity.
The sample was male and female patients who had undergone a commissurotomy, therefore this is unlikely to be generalisable to ‘normal’ brains. However, it could be representative of people with commissurotomy.
How is Sperry reliable?
Within the study, Sperry found general trends in the lateralisation of brain function in the split-brain participants, and the similarities from split-brain participant to split-brain participant suggest that some of these findings are reliable. However, the ‘outright exceptions’ noted in some of the participants are a challenge to the reliability of the findings.
Is Sperry ethnocentric?
We could argue that Sperry’s study is not ethnocentric as it was investigating a species specific behaviour.
On the other hand, Sperry notes that there were individual differences and exceptions to the rule in the split-brain patients.
Our environment and culture influences affects how our brain develops, so it might be that people not raised in a Western environment might show differences in their brain lateralisation.
Which side of the nature/nurture debate does Sperry support?
Sperry could be nurture because their experiences like having a split brain surgery influenced the ability of the patients, for example no longer being able to name objects that they touch with their left hand out of sight.
Which side of the free will/determinism debate does Sperry support?
Sperry’s study suggests a position of biological determinism as undergoing a commissurotomy will mean that split-brain patients are (for example) no longer able to name objects that they touch with their left hands out of sight. Their inability to do this is determined by physiological factors.
Which side of the reductionism/holism debate does Sperry support?
Sperry is could be reductionist because it is mainly focusing on the single factor of patients with a commissurotomy and how that influences their behaviour.
Which side of the individual/situational debate does Sperry support?
Sperry could be more situational because depending on the circumstances, their ability to do things like remember to name objects they touch with their left hand out of sight is unavailable.
How useful is the research of Sperry ?
Sperry’s work was ground-breaking in beginning to understand the physiognomy of the brain; that is, how the brain works. It revealed the importance of the corpus callosum as a pathway for internal communication between the two sides of the brain. This can be seen as intrinsically useful.
How have the ethical considerations been kept/broken in Sperry?
The study was conducted ethically as the participants consented to be studied, no deception was used, and they were neither harmed nor unduly stressed by the experimental tests.
How socially sensitive is the research of Sperry?
It can be socially sensitive as people with a commissurotomy could be discriminated against for not having the ability to do certain things anymore
How scientific is the research of Sperry?
Sperry carried out controlled laboratory experiments and these fulfil the scientific criteria of theory, control, evidence and replication.
As it would be possible to prove false what Sperry is saying about the abilities of split-brain patients by replicating his study with a fresh sample of such patients, in theory his work is falsifiable.
What is the background of Casey?
Mischel et al (1972) tested 4-year-old children.
Putting a marshmallow in front of them, the child was told the researcher would be leaving and they could either eat it immediately or wait and get an extra marshmallow when the researcher returned.
What are the aims of Casey?
(Experiment 1 – behaviour) To see if low delayers on the marshmallow test at age 4 years (i.e. people who found it hard to delay gratification at that age) still struggled with resisting temptation in adulthood.
(Experiment 2 – the brain) To examine activity in areas of the brain thought to be associated with the ability to resist temptation.
What is the sample of Casey?
Experiment 1- 27 low delayers and 32 high delayers
Experiment 2- 11 low delayers and 15 high delayers
What is the procedure of Casey?
Experiment 1:
ppts were shown a series of faces on a laptop computer. Some of these had neutral expressions but, in the hot version of the task, ppts saw either happy or fearful faces. Ppts were told to press a button when they saw a particular expression on a person’s face. (GO on a fearful face, NO GO on a happy face)
Experiment 2:
ppts had to repeat the Go/NoGo task but this time inside a fMRI scanner
What are the results of Casey?
Exp 1:
Both groups performed with a high level of accuracy on the ‘Go’ trials in both hot and cool versions. Low delayers made more mistakes on the hot task
Exp 2:
Both groups scored highly on accuracy on go tasks, low delayers made more false alarms (low delayers 14.5% and high delayers 10.9%)
What are the conclusions of Casey?
Exp 1: the ability to delay gratification is a relatively stable characteristic within people
Exp 2: differences between people in their ability to show self control and delay gratification can be related to neurobiological differences.
How does Casey relate to the biological area?
Casey et al .’s study falls within the biological area as it is investigating whether there are specific regions of the brain that impact on our ability to resist the temptation of rewarding stimuli. Specifically, it provided empirical evidence that our biology has a significant part to play in our ability to defer gratification.
How does Casey relate to the key theme?
In relation to the key theme of regions of the brain, Casey et al .’s study revealed that there are two regions of the brain that have an impact on our ability to resist temptation and defer gratification. Specifically, the study found empirical evidence for Metcalfe and Mischel’s ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ processing systems in the brain that affect self-control. The ‘hot’ system is in the ventral striatum and the ‘cool’ system is in the inferior frontal gyrus.
How is Casey valid?
Casey et al . conducted their study under controlled conditions, using standardised instructions, testing and procedures. This high level of control means that the study is high in design validity, as extraneous variables that could impact on the study have been strictly controlled.
There are problems with the sample of Casey et al .’s study that make us question the study’s population validity
In terms of ecological validity, the Go/No-Go tasks in this study are contrived tests that do not have a direct equivalent in everyday life. While the momentarily flashed static image of a happy face may elicit a realistic response from the participant, it is possible that it may not. Therefore Casey et al .’s findings might not tell us how people respond under normal conditions.
Similarly, being scanned in an fMRI scanner while doing a Go/No-Go task is not something that a person would have to do every day and the strangeness of it could have had an impact on the performance of the participants on the test.
How is Casey reliable?
One of the weaknesses of longitudinal studies that are conducted over decades (as in this study) is that they are not timeand cost-effective to replicate. For instance, if we wanted to repeat Casey’s study to establish its reliability, we would have to start out with four-year-olds and follow them through into their forties. It would therefore not be easy to establish the reliability of Casey’s research.
Is Casey ethnocentric?
On the one hand, since Casey’s study tells us that self-control and deferred gratification is affected by the anatomy and physiognomy of our brain, we could argue that Casey’s study is not ethnocentric as it was investigating a species specific behaviour.
On the other hand, the research was only conducted in America, and it may well be that being raised in a culture of capitalism and consumerism, which puts temptation in people’s way more than other cultures might, means that there may not be as many ‘low delayers’ in other cultures. This would mean the findings of this study were ethnocentric and we should be cautious in assuming that a lack of self-control is either ‘natural’ or a universal human trait.
