CS: Gilchrist And Nesbergs Study On Perception Flashcards
What was the aim of Gilchrist and Nesbergs study of motivation
To find out what effect food deprivation would have on the perception of food related pictures. Brighter when ps had fine without food for several hours?
What was the method of Gilchrist and Nesbergs study of motivation
(26 volunteers) Two groups of students: one group deprived of food for 20 hours and a control group (not hungry).
Students were shown four slides, each one showing a meal. (Steak, fired chicken, hamburger, spaghetti)
The slide was displayed for 15 seconds.
The picture was shown again, but dimmer, and participants had to adjust the lighting to make it look the same as it did before
What were the results of Gilchrist and Nesbergs study of motivation
Participants perceived the food as brighter the longer they were deprived of food.
The control group (who were not deprived of food) didn’t perceive the food as brighter.
What was the conclusion of Gilchrist and Nesbergs study of motivation
Gilchrist and Nesberg’s study suggests that hunger is a motivating factor that affects perception. Being deprived of basic needs produces a heightened sensitivity to food-related pictures, making them appear brighter and more appealing.
This study is an example of how motivation can affect perceptual set.
State 2 weaknesses of Gilchrist and Nesbergs study of motivation
Ethical issues
Point: One weakness is that depriving people of food and water may not be ethical.
Explanation: Studies of food deprivation could be criticised on ethical grounds. Although the period of time without food in Gilchrist and Nesberg’s study is not huge (20 hours), it may nevertheless cause participants some discomfort to take part.
Participants would have given their informed consent to take part in the study but may not have fully understood what it would feel like to go without food and they may have felt they couldn’t really quit without spoiling the study.
It may not be fair to deprive people of food for the purpose of a psychology experiment.
Not like everyday life
Point: A further weakness is that aspects of the study were not like everyday life.
Explanation: The effects of motivation on perception may occur in real-life situations but there are aspects of Gilchrist and Nesberg’s study that are not very true to life. Participants were asked to judge pictures of food rather than real food. It might have been better, and more realistic, to use actual food rather than pictures. Also, judging pictures for brightness is not something we generally do in an everyday situation.
This decreases the validity of Gilchrist and Nesberg’s results and affects how far the results from the study can be generalised to everyday life.
State 1 strength of Gilchrist and Nesbergs study of motivation (perception)
One strength of Gilchrist and Nesberg’s study is that similar studies have found similar results.
Explanation: Sanford (1936) deprived participants of food for varying lengths of time, up to four hours, and then showed them ambiguous pictures. The longer the participants had been deprived of food, the more likely they were to perceive the pictures as representing food - for instance, a brown blob was more likely to have been perceived as a hamburger.
Similar results in related studies increase the validity of the
Gilchrist and Neshern study
