"Little Albert"

  

    In 1920 a physiologist by the name of John B. Watson wanted to know more about the idea of ‘classical conditioning ‘. His experiment began with a nine-month-old baby soon to be known as ‘Little Albert’. Before the case study Albert hadn’t feared anything that Watson had given him to play with. This included a white rat, a mask, a monkey and many more things like this group. As the experiment went on when Watson brought the objects and animals back out again for Albert to play with he would make a loud banging noise when he reached for it therefore frightening the little child. Thus, just at the mere sight of something even similarly close to white and fuzzy Albert would instantly cry and try to get away. Watson had conditioned a nine-month-old to fear things white and fuzzy a phobia he would have to live with for the rest of his life.

    ‘Little Albert’ is what we might consider the first unethical case study in history. Today that experiment wouldn’t fit the rules and regulations to be conducted. It was unethical for Watson to take a baby and condition him to fear these things. Rules and regulations have been set since then to make sure every study in the lab or field is fair and ethical.

  The psychologist must obtain informed consent, protect the participants from harm, maintain confidentially and debrief them at the end of the experiment. “Little Albert’ failed these rules and regulations. As a baby, he couldn’t consent them and he didn’t keep his confidentially he emotionally harmed the poor baby and left a lifelong phobia. Although one of the most famous examples of classical conditioning and how it works ‘Little Albert’ was unethical and that was a major flaw in the experiment. Could there be more "Little Albert's" out there?

Hambrick, David "Learning" Psychology 101. Wells Hall, East Lansing. October 31,2016. Lecture.

C.C

Childhoods and Relationships as Adults

     There are lots of questions about how early childhood experiences can affect people later in life. How childhood affects intimate relationships later in life is the main focus of the article. The study was a longitudinal study so it spanned over many years. It started during the Great Depression and 60 years later the scientists followed up with the same people and it was concluded that the men who were raised in warm, loving environments had better relationships with partners later in life.

     The idea of the importance of attachment came in the 1960’s. The two scientists involved were in charge were Robert Waldinger and Marc Schulz. The original study took 268 sophomores at Harvard and 456 inner city teens from lower class households. There were lengthy interviews and observations at home of the relationships between the members of the household. Many years later, the Harvard researchers held more interviews with the then middle aged men and how they managed their negative emotions. Then, once the men were in their 80’s, they conducted last interviews to see how the men’s relationships were with their partners. The results were that men who had warm environments as children had healthy attachments with their partners later in life.

     While it is an interesting find, there are scientists out there that believe that attachment can evolve with time. There are people who are raised in difficult situations, but overcome it and have healthy relationships later on. Also with this study, there are confounding variables such as the fact that this study was only done with Caucasian men and various other contributions. But, the fact of the matter is that taking care of children at a young age can greatly affect lifelong development. 

J.M

Citation:

Caruso, Catherine. "Men with Happier Childhoods Have Stronger Relationships in Old Age." Scientific American. N.p., 18 Oct. 2016. Web. 29 Oct. 2016.

Genetic Relationship Between Fish and Humans

I have recently been doing an observational research project on Betta fish and how they are connected to humans. Betta fish are those colorful fish that you see at the pet store in tiny dishes by themselves. I would always wonder why they were kept alone until about a month ago when my research team and I learned of their aggressive nature.

Bettas were originally from Southeast Asia and bred to fight. Acts of aggression and situations that can cause heightened aggression include:

·         Charging another fish

·         Fin flaring

·         Gill flaring

·         Territorial conflicts

·         Finding mates

·         Protecting eggs

Our research group considered their aggressive behavior at a genetic level and found that both the fish and humans share the HTR1A gene which codes for serotonin, and when this gene becomes inactive displays of aggression and depression can form as a result. This gene between humans and the Betta fish is only one of many genes that humans share with other species. For more information and a list of references please visit my research page at the following link https://msu.edu/~conleya8/

A.C.

Confidence, Beauty and High Kicks

There is a video on youtube that I just recently ran across (can be found here). It has gone viral for what I believe is the wrong reasons. People think that it is funny and strange from what can be gathered by reading the comments. While it is true that the video was made for comedy, there is a message that can be gathered from its content. That message is one of overwhelming body positivity.

The sheer amount of willpower and self confidence it must have taken to post a video to the largest video-sharing site on the planet taking about “body rolls” is immense. It’s done in such a playful and natural manner that I think it can have a profound effect on men or women who are not confident in their body image. The woman is not the stereotypical version of “sexy” that we see portrayed in the media. However, her confidence is irrefutably sexy.

There is a large problem in our world today when it comes to body shaming and eating disorders. This comes from the false idea that only one type of body type can be beautiful. People try and try to reach this misconstrued pinnacle of beauty and end up hating themself in the process. We need more people to pick up the torch of helping people learn to love themselves. Putting this stereotyped, unattainable idea of beauty in our minds when someone says the word beauty can do nothing but harm.

C.F.

Academia and This Upcoming Election

     Science has not been a hot topic in this election. In fact, it's been greatly ignored among the debates and in most rallies. How each candidate stands on environment and other science fields is something that would take some research to find out. 

     Most of the time, those who follow science as a career tend to be liberal in politics. But, there are some conservative scientists out there who are afraid to talk politics with their peers. Many of them feel uncomfortable admitting their views and when interviewed were asked to keep their identities secret. A biologist from Yale University admitted to voting for Trump even though she doesn't agree with him on a lot of things and admitted to staying quiet when hearing her colleagues talk about the election. Neil Gross, a sociologist at Colby College, says that he understands her concerns about being a conservative at a university. He even says that the nomination of Donald Trump probably has worsened the issues already in place. A lot of researchers that were interviewed said that their vote wasn't persuaded by the amount of knowledge the candidates have on science since it's been largely ignored. Some even say they are happy the candidates don't have science to back up ideas they have and believe that the government has been far too involved anyways. 

     There are some conservative scientists out there who are voting for Trump. It's important to remember that many of them aren't voting because of just one view or aspect of him. Most are doing so because of a bigger picture they want to see. 

J.M.

Reardon, Sara, and Nature Magazine. "Why Some Scientists Support Donald Trump." Scientific       American. N.p., 19 Oct. 2016. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.              

What is Memory?

    What was the first award you ever won? Think about it take as long as you need. Memory is a very profound, interesting topic and in Psychology 101 I would learn the true importance of it.

     
    Memory is simply learning that has persisted. Over time through one’s life we have many experiences and encounters. When those events encode into our brain they are defined as memory. Memory however is not defined by the length. We can remember a lifetime, our long-term memory or just a couple seconds our short-term memory. The way memory works is we get information into our brain this process is called encoding. Once the information is encoded the information is retained and stored. Once stored we can go back into consciousness and retrieve that information.

     Without memory imagine what life would be like. Memory plays a huge role in our identity. If you couldn’t remember your past you wouldn’t know who you were. What if you didn’t have the ability to form new memories. Who are you? This is what happened to Clive Wearing the man with the 30 second memory. He suffered from anterograde as well as retrograde amnesia. All he remembers from his past life is he has kids and loves his wife.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=Vwigmktix2Y

Hambrick, David "Memory' Psychology 101. Wells Hall, East Lansing. October 21,2016. Lecture.

C.C

The Ethics of Psychology (Prompt #2)

The first ethical guideline of psychology basically states “do no harm.” This means that psychologists should strive to benefit those who are engaged in their experiments or at least make sure that they do not have any negative, long-term effects. I like this rule because it seems like the intentions are good. However, I do think that it is going to inhibit the advancement of psychological research which could benefit the world.

The second guideline are the values of fidelity and responsibility. This is pretty much the importance of accountability between psychologists, subjects, and other professionals of different fields. They are required to makes sure that their colleagues do not abuse the power that a psychologist has. I again think this rule has great intentions. It is about trying to make sure all humans are equal in the eyes of the world. However, I worry that it is going to start making some psychologists do “underground” studies away from other people who could help.

The third guideline is the importance of upholding the principle of integrity. Psychologists are to be honest and accurate in their studies and with their patients. This guideline seems to be the one that I have the fewest qualms with. I do not see any negative side effects of telling the truth. There is also a caveat that says a psychologist may deny the truth if the truth would cause harm. This ethical guideline seems perfect.

The fourth guideline pretty much says that the knowledge gained through psychological studies is free use for those who would like to use it. A psychologist cannot hide what they have learned good or bad. I think this is a great rule if you assume that we are alone in the universe. However, if there were a form of intelligent life out there that was hostile towards humans. They would have access to everything that could be used to potentially manipulate us. I realize that this is a ridiculous situation. I just thought that it should be mentioned.

The fifth and final guideline tells psychologists to respect people’s rights and dignity. This covers a wide range of topics. From privacy and confidentiality to gender and race bias. It is an overarching rule that basically means, “be good.” Although I think this rule is perhaps the most pure, it is extremely vague. Perhaps it could use some rewording to increase its accuracy.

I believe that these ethical principles all come from a pure intention. I think that they are a great attempt at self regulation, and they are definitely “good enough.” However, a group of psychologists should be able to come up with a more accurate list. There is not any rush to change it, but it could be better. There is no doubt that the majourity of psychologists follow these rules and the public believes that for the most part. Yet there will always be people who believe they know better and ignore the standards that their colleagues put in place.

C.F.

Works Cited

Effective Date June 1, 2010. Copyright © 2010 American Psychological Association. All Rights Reserved. The 1992 Ethics Code was Not Effective as of June 1, 2003. "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct." Http://www.apa.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. <http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/>.