Gilhrist And Nesburg’s Study (1952)

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To find out what effect food deprivation would have on the perception of food - related pictures

Question 2

Method

Answer 2

• 26 volunteers were placed randomly into two conditions: the control group were not deprived of food; the other went without food for 20 hours
• participants were shown four images of a meal for 15 seconds and told it was a matching exercise
• after each slide the projecter was turned off and the lights dimmed, then participants had to adjust the lighting so it was the same as the original image

Question 3

Results

Answer 3

The way that food - deprived participants adjusted the lighting suggested they had perceived the food pictures as brighter than they actually were

Question 4

Conclusion

Answer 4

Being deprived of basic needs produces a height and sensitivity to food - related pictures, making them appear brighter and more appealing

Question 5

Stength

Answer 5

• support from similar studies

Question 6

Weakness (2)

Answer 6

• ethical issues
• not like everyday life

Question 7

Support from similar studies

Answer 7

Sanford (1936) deprived participants of food for varying lengths of time, up to four hours, and then showed them ambiguous pictures. Produces similar results and so increases the validity of the Gilchrist and Nesberg study

Question 8

Ethical issues

Answer 8

Depriving people of food and water may not be ethical as it can cause discomfort even though participants gave their informed consent

Question 9

Ethical issues

Answer 9

Depriving people of food and water may not be ethical as it can cause discomfort even though participants gave their informed consent

Question 10

Not like everyday life

Answer 10

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 which decreases the validity of the results and affects how far the results can be generalised to everyday life