Casey et al (2011) Flashcards
Background of the study
-The ability to delay gratification refers to the ability to resist a small reward now in favour of a greater reward in the future
-From the 1960s marshmallow test, children were labelled ‘low’ or ‘high’ delayers
Low delayers
The children that were unable to wait and and just ate the marshmallow straight away
High delayers
The children that were able to wait and got two marshmallows
Hot cues
Things that we find tempting and appealing
Cold cues
Things that we find neutral
Cooling strategies
Focusing on cool cues to try and resist the temptation of a hot cue
Aim of the study (1)
Casey wanted to find out whether the people who had difficulties delaying gratification at the age pf four would still have difficulties delaying gratification 40 years later
Sample (1)
-Taken from people who participated in the original marshmallow test
-27 low delayers and 32 high delayers
-All aged 44
Experimental design (1)
-Independent measures-high and low delayers
-Repeated measures-did both hot and cool tasks
Procedure (1)
-Go/no-go task
-Shown as series of faces ‘cool’ had neutral expressions ‘hot’ had happy/fearful expressions
-Press button when they saw the fearful faces, but hold back for happy faces
Controls (1)
-Same faces used
-Displayed for 500ms
-One second in between faces
Findings/conclusions (1)
-High delayers were found to be better at resisting pressing the button when seeing a happy face than the low delayers
-Suggest that the ability to delay gratification is a relatively stable characteristic within people
Aim (2)
Casey wanted to see if there was a brain based explanation for the ability to delay gratification
Sample (2)
-27 participants from the initial study agreed to participate
-11 low delayers, 15 high delayers
-Data for one participant removed due to poor task performance
Procedure (2)
-Casey got participants to repeat ‘Go/No-Go’ task
-However this time in a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
-Measured what parts of the brain were active during the task
Findings/conclusions (2)
-When low-delayers saw happy faces, they had less activity in the inferior frontal gyrus than the high delayers (cool part)
-Low-delayers then had more activity in their ventral striatum, which is associated with rewards (hot part)
-From this Casey concluded that differences in peoples abilities to show self-control and delay gratification can be related to neurological differences
How does this study link to the nature/nurture debate
-Nature
-Gratification is a stable characteristic and links to brain structure/activity
How does this study link to the freewill/determinism debate
-Determinism
-Delay of gratification determined by activity in inferior frontal gyrus and ventral striatum
How does this study link to the individual/situational explanations debate
-Individual
-Due to brain activity so delay of gratification wouldn’t change dependent on situation
-Investigated individual differences in delay of gratification which were stable over time
How could the study be seen as socially sensitive?
People may be upset that their ability to resist temptation is out of their control
How does the study link to the reductionism/holism debate?
-Holism
-The study looked at both behavioural and biological explanations of delay of gratification
How does the study relate to the biological area?
Focuses on the areas of the brain that are active when resisting temptation
Two similarities between Casey and Sperry’s studies
-Highly controlled procedures
-Both were quasi experiments
Explain the similarity ‘highly controlled procedures’
-Sperry- participants saw the same images, which were all shown for 1/10 of a second
-Casey- Participants all saw the same faces displayed for 500ms, with a one second gap
Explain the similarity ‘both were quasi experiments’
-Sperry- the IV of participants being epileptic and having the commissurotomy was naturally occouring
-Casey- the brain structure/delay of gratification was a naturally occurring IV
Two differences between Casey and Sperry’s studies
-Lasted different time periods
-Different tech used
Explain the difference ‘lasted different time periods’
-Sperry- snapshot, the study was completed within a day
-Casey- longitudinal, the same participants were used when they were 4 and then 44
Explain the difference ‘different tech used’
-Sperry- used a tachistoscope to display images to one visual field
-Casey- used a fMRI scanner to see activity in the ventral striatum and inferior frontal gyrus
How has the study changed our understanding of the key them ‘regions of the brain’?
-Sperry only researched corpus colossum, whereas Casey gave us explanations for the inferior frontal gyrus and the ventral striatum
-Gives us new ways of measuring brain function-Casey used fMRI, whilst Sperry used a tachistoscope
How hasn’t the study changed our understanding of the key them ‘regions of the brain’?
-Study still supports the idea of ‘localisation of control’, where different parts of the brain control different functions
How the study has changed our understanding of individual diversity
Sperry studied people with ‘abnormal’ brains, whilst Casey studied people with ‘normal’ brains
How the study has changed our understanding of social diversity
Casey found there were small differences in brain function between ‘normal’ people, which wasn’t known before
How the study hasn’t changed our understanding of cultural diversity
Sperry and Casey were both studying the brain structures of Americans only, and neither of their studies attempted to include people from different cultural backgrounds
