ocr gce psychology - an anthology of core studies for the

PSYCHOLOGY

A LEVELTeacher Guide

Guide to Core Studies 2Version 2

CONTENTS

A LEVELPSYCHOLOGY

Social Psychology Responses to people in needPiliavin, I. M., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. A. (1969) Page 3 Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon? Levine, R.V., Norenzayan,A. & Philbrick,K. (2001) Page 8 Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers

Cognitive Psychology AttentionMoray , N. (1959) Page 15 Attention in dichotic listening: affective cues and the influence of instructionsSimons, D. J. & Chabris, C. F. (1999) Page 21 Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events

Developmental Psychology Moral DevelopmentKohlberg, L. (1968) Page 29 The child as a moral philosopher.Lee, K., Cameron, C., Xu, F., Fu,G. Page 35 & Board, J. (1997) Chinese and Canadian children’s evaluations of lying and truth telling: Similarities and differences in the context of pro- and antisocial behaviours.

Biological Psychology Brain plasticityBlakemore, C. & Cooper, G. F. (1970) Page 42 Development of the brain depends on the visual environment.Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S., Page 46 Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S. & Frith, C. D. (2000) Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers.

Psychology of Individual Differences Measuring differencesGould, S. J. (1982) Page 50 A nation of morons.Hancock, J., Woodworth, Page 57 M.T. & Porter, S. (2011) Hungry like the wolf: a word-pattern analysis of the language of psychopaths.

1. Theory/ies on which the study is based

• Althoughpluralisticignoranceand/orgenuineambiguitymakeitlesslikelythatanindividualwilldefineasituationasanemergency,inmanysituationsthereasonanindividualmaynothelpisbecausetheydiffuseresponsibility.

• Diffusionofresponsibilityiswheretheresponsibilityforthesituationisspread(diffused)amongthepeoplepresent.Thisimpliesthatthemorepeoplepresent,themorethebystanderbelievestheresponsibilityisspreadoutsotheyfeellesspersonallyresponsibilityandarethereforelesslikelytohelp.

• Anotherexplanationfornothelpingavictiminneedisthatabystandermaybelievethatsomeoneelsewilldowhat’snecessarysothereisnoneedforthemtoofferassistance.Thisisknownas‘bystanderapathy’.

2. Background to the study

• SincethemurderofKittyGenovesein1964(awomanstabbedtodeathoveraperiodof30minutesinfrontofareported38unresponsivewitnesses),manysocialpsychologistshavestudiedtheconceptofgoodSamaritanism.

• ResearchbyDarleyandLatané(1968)foundthatbystandershearinganepilepticfitoverearphones,ledtothosewhobelievedotherwitnessestobepresentbeinglesslikelytohelpthevictimthanbystanderswhobelievedtheywerealone.

• SubsequentresearchbyLatanéandRodin(1969)ontheresponsetothevictimofafallconfirmedthisfindingandsuggestedthatassistancefrombystanderswaslesslikelyiftheywerestrangersthaniftheywereacquaintances.

• FieldexperimentsconductedbyBryanandTest(1967)showedthatindividualsaremorelikelytobegoodSamaritansiftheyhavejustobservedanotherindividualperformingahelpfulact.

• Muchoftheworkonvictimisationhasbeenconductedinlaboratorysettings,usingnon-visualemergencysituations.

• Thisstudywasdesignedtoinvestigate,underreallifeconditions,theeffectofseveralvariablesonhelpingbehaviour.

PILIAVIN, I. M., RODIN, J., & PILIAVIN, J. A. (1969)Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 13, No. 4, pages 289-299.

Social Psychology Responsestopeopleinneed

3. Research Method

• Thestudywasafieldexperiment.

• ThefieldsituationwastheAandDtrainsofthe8thAvenueNewYorkSubwaybetween59thStreetand125Street.Thejourneyslastedabout7½minutes.

• Theexperimenthadfourindependentvariables(IVs):

(i)Typeofvictim(drunkorcarryingacane).

(ii)Raceofvictim(blackorwhite).

(iii)Effectofamodel(after70or150seconds,fromthecriticaloradjacentarea),ornomodelatall.

(iv)Sizeofthewitnessinggroup(anaturallyoccurringindependentvariable).

• Thedependentvariables(DVs)-recordedbytwofemaleobserversseatedintheadjacentarea-were:

(i)Frequencyofhelp.

(ii)Speedofhelp.

(iii)Raceofhelper.

(iv)Sexofhelper.

(v)Movementoutofcriticalarea.

(vi)Verbalcommentsbybystanders.

4. Sample

• Participantswereabout4,450menandwomenwhousedtheNewYorksubwayonweekdaysbetween11.00amand3.00pmbetweenApril15andJune26,1968.

• About45%wereblack,55%white.

5. Outline of the procedure/study

• Therewere4teamsof4researchers:2femaleobservers,2males–oneactingasvictim,onethemodel.

• Thevictims(3white,1black)wereallmale,GeneralStudiesstudents,aged26-35years,anddressedalike.Theyeithersmelledofliquorandcarriedaliquorbottlewrappedtightlyinabrownbagorappearedsoberandcarriedablackcane.Inallaspectstheyactedidenticallyinbothconditions.

• Themodels(allwhite)weremalesaged24-29years.Therewere4modelconditions:

(i)Criticalarea-early.

(ii)Criticalarea–late.

(iii)Adjacentarea–early.

(iv)Adjacentarea–late.

• Theobserversrecordedthedependentvariables.Oneachtrialoneobservernotedtherace,sexandlocationofeveryriderseatedorstandinginthecriticalarea.Inadditionshecountedthetotalnumberofindividualswhocametothevictim’sassistance.Shealsorecordedtherace,sexandlocationofeveryhelper.Thesecondobservercodedtherace,sexandlocationofallpersonsintheadjacentarea.Shealsorecordedthelatencyofthefirsthelper’sarrivalafterthevictimhadfallenandonappropriatetrials,thelatencyofthefirsthelper’sarrivalaftertheprogrammedmodelhadarrived.Bothobserversrecordedcommentsspontaneouslymadebynearbypassengersandattemptedtoelicitcommentsfromaridersittingnexttothem.

• Thevictimstoodnearapoleinthecriticalarea.Afterabout70secondshestaggeredforwardandcollapsed.Untilreceivinghelpheremainedsupineonthefloorlookingattheceiling.Ifhereceivednohelpbythetimethetrainstoppedthemodelhelpedhimtohisfeet.Atthestoptheteamdisembarkedandwaitedseparatelyuntilotherpassengershadleftthestation.Theythenchangedplatformstorepeattheprocessintheoppositedirection.

• Between6-8trialswererunonagivenday,allusingthesame‘victimcondition’.

• ThereweremorecanetrialsthandrunktrialswhichweredistributedunevenlyacrossblackandwhitevictimsbecauseTeam2violatedintructionsbyrunningcaneratherthandrunktrialsbecausethevictim“didn’tlike”playingthedrunk!Subsequentstudentstrikespreventedadditionaltrialstocorrectthis.

6. Key findings

• Thecanevictimreceivedspontaneoushelp95%ofthetime(62/65trails)comparedtothedrunkvictim50%ofthetime(19/38trials).

• Overalltherewas100%helpforthecanevictimcomparedto81%helpforthedrunkvictim.

• Helpwasofferedmorequicklytothecanevictim(amedianof5secondscomparedto109secondsdelayforthedrunkvictim).

• On49/81(60%)trialswhenhelpwasgiventhiswasprovidedby2ormorehelpers.

• 90%ofthefirsthelpersweremales.

• Therewasaslighttendencyforsameracehelpingespeciallyinthedrunkcondition.

• Nodiffusionofresponsibilitywasfound,infactresponsetimeswerefasterwithlargergroupsthansmaller.

• Morecommentsweremadebypassengersinthedrunkthanthecaneconditionandmostcommentsweremadewhennohelpwasgivenwithinthefirst70seconds.

7. Possible conclusions

• Anindividualwhoappearsillismorelikelytoreceivehelpthanonewhoappearsdrunk.

• Withmixedgroupsofmenandwomen,menaremorelikelythanwomentohelpamalevictim.

• Withmixed-racegroups,peoplearemorelikelytohelpthoseofthesameraceasthemselves,particularlyiftheydeemthevictim’ssituationtobeofhisownmakinge.g.drunk.

• Thereisnostrongrelationshipbetweennumberofbystandersandspeedofhelpingwhenanincidentisvisible.

• Whenescapeisnotpossibleandbystandersareface-to-facewithavictim,helpislikelytobeforthcoming.

• Bystandersconductacost-rewardanalysisbeforedecidingwhetherornottohelpavictim.

• Subsequentspontaneoushelpfromotherswasirrespectiveofraceorvictimtype.

• Helpingbehaviourreferstovoluntaryactionsintendedtohelpothersandisaformofprosocialbehaviour.

• Theoriesabouthelpingbehaviourinclude:

- Kinselectiontheory:thisreferstothetendencytoperformbehavioursthatmayfavourthechanceofsurvivalofpeoplewithasimilargeneticbase(e.g.Hoffman,1981).

- Reciprocalaltruism:thisholdsthattheincentiveforanindividualtohelpinthepresentisbasedontheexpectationofthepotentialreceiptinthefuture(Trivers,1971).

- Responsibility-prosocialvalueorientation:holdsthatastronginfluenceonhelpingbehaviourisafeelingofandbeliefinone’sresponsibilitytohelp,especiallywhencombinedwiththebeliefthatoneisabletohelptheotherperson(Staub,2003).

- Socialexchangetheory:peoplehelpbecausetheywanttogaingoodsfromtheonebeinghelped.Theycalculaterewardsandcostsofhelpingothers,aimingtomaximisetherewardsandminimisethecosts(Foa&Foa,1975).

• Milgram(1970)proposedthatpeopleinurbanareasarelesshelpfulthanthoseinruralareasbecausetheycopewithstimulusoverloaddifferently:urbandwellersrestricttheirattentionmainlytopersonallyrelevantevents.Strangers,andtheirsituationsofneedmay,therefore,gounnoticed.

LEVINE, R.V., NORENZAYAN,A. & PHILBRICK,K. (2001) Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers.Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Volume 32, No. 5, pages 543-560.

• Studiesconductedinseveraldifferentcountries(includingtheUSA,SaudiArabiaandSudan)havefoundthatpeoplelivinginurbanareastendtobelesshelpfulthanthoseinruralsettings(Hedge&Yousif,1992;Yousif&Korte,1995).

• Virtuallyallofthestudiesofcommunitydifferencesinhelpinghavefocusedonthesinglevariableofpopulationsize,mostoftentestingthehypothesisthatthetendencytohelpstrangersdeclinesasthesizeofthecityincreases.Steblay(1987)foundgeneralsupportforthishypothesiswiththedeclineinhelpingratebeginningatpopulationsof300,000.Shealsofoundthaturbanenvironmentsof300,000peopleormoreandruralenvironmentsof5,000peopleorlessweretheworstplacesifonewaslookingforhelp.

• Amajorculturaldifferenceinhelpingbehaviouristhedifferencebetweencollectivismandindividualism.Collectivistsattendmoretotheneedsandgoalsofthegrouptheybelongto,andindividualistsfocusontheirownselves.Therefore,collectivistswouldbemorelikelytohelpingroupmembers,butlessfrequentthanindividualstohelpstrangers(Triandis,1991).

• Althoughmanystudieshavedemonstratedthathelpingratesdifferbetweencommunitiesinasinglecountry,almostnosystematiccross-culturalresearchofhelpingbehaviourhadbeenconductedpriortothisstudy.

• Theaimofthisstudywasthereforetolookathelpingbehaviour,inawiderangeofcultures,inlargecitiesaroundtheworldinrelationtofourspecificcommunityvariables:(i)populationsize(ii)economicwell-being(iii)culturalvalues(individualism-collectivism,simpatia)(iv)walkingspeed(paceoflife).

• Thisstudyhadthreemaingoals:(i)Todetermineifacity’stendencytooffernonemergencyhelptostrangersisstableacrosssituationsoverawiderangeofculturesi.e.ishelpingstrangersacross-culturallymeaningfulcharacteristicofaplace?(ii)Toobtainadescriptivebodyofdataonhelpingbehaviouracrossculturesusingidenticalproceduresi.e.doeshelpingstrangersvarycross-culturally?(iii)Toidentifycountry-levelvariablesthatmightrelatetodifferencesinhelpingi.e.whataresomecommunitycharacteristicsthatarerelatedtohelpingofstrangersacrosscultures?

• Threeoverlappingtheoreticalexplanationsforcommunity-leveldifferencesinhelpingbehaviour,noneofwhichhadbeenpreviouslyconsideredincross-culturalresearch,weretested:(i)economicexplanations(ii)culturalvalues(iii)cognitiveexplanations:paceoflife.

3. Research method

• Thiswasaquasi-experimentcarriedoutinthefieldthatusedanindependentmeasuresdesign.

• Thefieldsituationwas23largecitiesaroundtheworldincludingRiodeJaneiro(Brazil),Calcutta(India),Madrid(Spain),Shanghai(China),Budapest(Hungary),Rome(Italy),NewYork(USA)andKualaLampur(Malaysia).Thestudyshouldbeconsideredasaquasi-experimentbecausetheindependentvariable–thepeopleineachcity–wasnaturallyoccurring.

• Theexperimentmeasured,throughtheuseofaseriesofcorrelationsofco-variables,helpingbehaviourinthreenonemergencysituations:

(i)whetherthevictimdroppedapen

(ii)whetherthevictimhadahurt/injuredleg

(iii)whetherthevictimwasblindandtryingtocrossthestreet.

• Thedependentvariable(DV)wasthehelpingrateofthe23individualcities(calculatedtogiveeachcityanOverallHelpingIndex).

• Thethreemeasuresofhelpingwerecorrelatedwithstatisticsreflectingpopulationsize,economicwell-being,culturalvalues(individualism-collectivism,simpatia)andthepaceoflifeforeachofthe23locations.

4. Sample

• Participantsinthisstudywerelargecitiesineachof23countries–inmostcasesthelargestineachcountryi.e.individualsineachofthesecitiesatthetimeoftheexperiment.

• Eachofthethreehelpingmeasuresandthewalkingspeedmeasurewereadministeredintwoormorelocations,inmaindowntownareas,duringmainbusinesshours,oncleardays,duringthesummermonthsofoneormoreyearsbetween1992and1997.

• Forthedroppedpenandhurtlegsituations,onlyindividualswalkingalonewereselected.Children(youngerthan17yearsold),andpeoplewhowerephysicallydisabled,veryold,carryingpackagesetc(i.e.thosewhomightnotbefullycapableorexpectedtohelp)wereexcluded.

• Participantswereselectedbyapproachingthesecondpotentialpersonwhocrossedapredeterminedline.

• Datawascollectedbyeitherinterested,responsiblestudentswhowereeithertravellingtoforeigncountriesorreturningtotheirhomecountriesforthesummer,orbycross-culturalpsychologistsandtheirstudentsinothercountrieswhovolunteeredtoassisttheauthors.

• Allexperimenterswerecollegeageanddressedneatlyandcasually.Tocontrolforexperimentergendereffectsandtoavoidpotentialproblemsinsomecities,allexperimentersweremen.

• Toensurestandardisationinscoringandtominimiseexperimentereffects:

(i)allexperimentersreceivedbothadetailedinstructionsheetandon-sitefieldtrainingforactingtheirroles,learningtheprocedureforparticipantselectionandscoringofparticipants

(ii)theexperimenterspractisedtogether

(ii)noverbalcommunicationwasrequiredoftheexperimenter.

• Thethreehelpingmeasureswere:

(i)Droppedpen.Walkingatacarefullypractised,moderatepace(15paces/10seconds),experimenterswalkedtowardasolitarypedestrianpassingintheoppositedirection.When10to15feetfromtheparticipant,theexperimenterreachedintohispocketandaccidentally,

withoutappearingtonotice,droppedhispenbehindhim,infullviewoftheparticipant,andcontinuedwalkingpasttheparticipant.Atotalof214menand210womenwereapproached.Participantswerescoredashavinghelpediftheycalledbacktotheexperimenterthathehaddroppedthepenand/orpickedupthepenandbroughtittotheexperimenter.

(ii)Hurtleg.Walkingwithaheavylimpandwearingalargeandclearlyvisiblelegbrace,experimentersaccidentallydroppedandunsuccessfullystruggledtoreachdownforapileofmagazinesastheycamewithin20feetofapassingpedestrian.Atotalof253menand240womenwereapproached.Helpingwasdefinedasofferingtohelpand/orbeginningtohelpwithoutoffering.

(iii)Helpingablindpersonacrossthestreet.Experimenters,dressedindarkglassesandcarryingwhitecanes,actedtheroleofablindpersonneedinghelpgettingacrossthestreet.(ThecanesandtrainingfortherolewereprovidedbytheFresnoFriendshipCentrefortheBlind).Experimentersattemptedtolocatedowntowncornerswithcrosswalks,trafficsignals,andmoderate,steadypedestrianflow.Theysteppeduptothecornerjustbeforethelightturnedgreen,heldouttheircane,andwaiteduntilsomeoneofferedhelp.Atrialwasterminatedafter60secondsorwhenthelightturnedred,whicheveroccurredfirst,afterwhichtheexperimenterwalkedawayfromthecorner.Atotalof281trialswereconducted.Helpingwasscoredifparticipants,ataminimum,informedtheexperimenterthatthelightwasgreen.

6. Key findings

NB:Forpurposesofanalyses,eachofthe23cities/countrieswastreatedasasingleparticipant.

- Theabovetableshowsthattwoofthethreecorrelationsweresignificant.

- Allthreeintercorrelationswereinthepositivedirection.

• Nosignificantgenderdifferencesinhelpingbehaviourwerefoundinthetwoconditionsinwhichrelativelyequalnumbersofmaleandfemaleparticipantsweretargetedbytheexperimenter(hurtleg,droppedpen):droppedpen,M(men)=.67,M(women)=.69,t(22)=.39,ns;hurtleg,M(men)=.63,M(women)=.65,t(22)=.75,ns.

• AnOverallHelpingIndexwascalculated,combiningresultsforthethreehelpingmeasures.Resultsshowedthatthemosthelpfulcities/countrieswere(1)RiodeJaneiro(Brazil),93%,(2)SanJose(CostaRica),91%(3)Lilongwe(Malawi),86%.Theleasthelpfulcities/countrieswere(23)KualaLampur(Malaysia),40%(22)NewYork(USA),45%,(21)Singapore(Singapore),48%.

. . . continues

Intercorrelations of Helping MeasuresHelping Measure

BlindPerson DroppedPen HurtLeg

DroppedPen 28**

HurtLeg .21 .36***

Blind+Pen+Leg .67**** .77**** .73****

**p<.10.***p<.05.****p<.01using1-tailedsignificancetest.n=23inallcases.

6. Key findings

. . . continued Correlations Between Helping Measures and Other Community Characteristics

- Theabovetableshowsthat,onaverage,therewerelowcorrelationsbetweenthecommunityvariablesandhelpingmeasures.

- Theonlystatisticallyreliablerelationshipwasbetweentheeconomicproductivitymeasureandoverallhelping:citiesthatweremorehelpfultendedtohavelowerPPP.

• Althoughstatisticallyinsignificant,therewasasmallrelationshipbetweenwalkingspeedandoverallhelping,withparticipantsinfastercitiessomewhatlesslikelytohelp.

• Moreindividualisticcountriesshowedsomewhatlessoverallhelpingandlesshelpinginthehurtlegsituationthancollectivistcountries,butnoneofthecorrelationsreachedsignificance.

• Therewasnorelationshipbetweenpopulationsizeandhelpingbehaviour.

• Thetwocommunityvariablesofeconomicproductivityandindividualism-collectivismandwalkingspeedwerehighlyintercorrelated:economicproductivitywaspositivelycorrelatedwithindividualismandnegativelycorrelatedwithwalkingspeedi.e.fasterplaceshadstrongereconomicproductivity.Individualismwasalsonegativelycorrelatedwithwalkingspeedi.e.fasterplacesweremoreindividualistic.

• Simpatiacountries(Brazil,CostaRica,ElSalvador,MexicoandSpain)were,onaverage,morehelpfulthannonsimpatiacountries.

• Overall,acity’shelpingratewasrelativelystableacrossallthreemeasures.

Helping Measure

CommunityCharacteristic OverallHelping BlindPerson HurtLeg DroppedPen

Populationsize(city) -.03

–.06

–.21

Purchasingpowerparity(PPP) –.43***

–.42***

–.21

–.32*

Walkingspeed .26

–.06

Individualism-collectivism –.17

–.09

–.07

NOTE:*p<.15.***p<.05,2-tailed.Samplesizesinparentheses.Statisticsforsomecommunitycharacteristicswerenotavailableforsomecountries,resultinginsmallersamplesizesforthoseanalyses.

• Thehelpingofstrangersisacross-culturallymeaningfulcharacteristicofaplace.

• Therearelargecross-culturalvariationsinhelpingrates.

• Helpingacrossculturesisinverselyrelatedtoacountry’seconomicproductivity.

• Countrieswiththeculturaltraditionofsimpatiaare,onaverage,morehelpfulthancountieswithnosuchtradition.

• Althoughfastercitiestendtobelesshelpfulthanslowercities,thelinkbetweeneconomichealthandhelpingisnotaby-productofafastpaceoflifeinaffluentsocieties.

• Thevalueofcollectivism-individualismisunrelatedtohelpingbehaviours.

• Attentionhasaselectivenature.

• Broadbent(1958)arguedthattheworldiscomposedofmanymoresensationsthancanbehandledbytheperceptualandcognitivecapabilitiesofthehumanobserver.Tocopewiththefloodofavailableinformation,humansmustselectivelyattendtoonlysomeinformationandsomehow‘tuneout’therest.Attention,therefore,istheresultofalimited-capacityinformation-processingsystem.

• Almostallearlymodelsofattentionassumedserialprocessing,astep-by-stepprocessinwhicheachoperationiscarriedoutinturn.ThefirstofthesewasBroadbent’s(1958)filtermodel,followedbyTreisman’s(1964)attentionmodelandthepertinencemodel(Deutsch&Deutsch,1963;Norman,1969).

• Earlyattemptstoexplaindividedattention,suchasKahneman’s(1973)centralcapacitytheory,alsoassumedserialprocessing.

• However,Allport’s(1980b)multi-channeltheoryofdividedattentionholdsthattwoormoreoperationscanbecarriedoutatthesametime.

• Therearetwomainmethodsofstudyingattention:

(i)Selectiveattention–herepeoplearepresentedwithtwoormoresimultaneous‘messages’,andareinstructedtoprocessandrespondtoonlyoneofthem.Themostpopularwayofdoingthisistouseshadowinginwhichonemessageisfedintotheleftearandadifferentmessageintotherightear(throughheadphones).Participantshavetorepeatoneofthesemessagesaloudastheyhearit.TheshadowingtechniqueisaformofdichoticlisteningwhichwasfirstusedbyCherry(1953)whenhestudiedthecocktailpartyphenomenon.

(ii)Dividedattention–thisisadual-tasktechniqueinwhichpeopleareaskedtoattendandrespondtoboth(orall)themessages.Whereasshadowingfocusesattentiononaparticularmessage,thedual-taskmethoddeliberatelydividespeople’sattention.

• Cherry’s(1953)methodof‘shadowing’oneoftwodichoticmessagesforhisstudyofattentioninlisteningfoundparticipantswhoshadowedamessagepresentedtooneearwereignorantofthecontentofamessagesimultaneouslypresentedtotheotherear.

• OtherresearchersthenmovedonfromCherry’sworkonhowpeoplecanattendtoonemessagebyinvestigatingwhysolittleseemedtoberememberedabouttheotherconversations(Hampton&Morris,1996).

• ThefirstexperimentinthisstudyaimedtotestCherry’sfindingsmorerigorouslywhilstthesecondandthirdexperimentsaimedtoinvestigateotherfactorsthatcanaffectattentionindichoticlistening.

MORAY, N. (1959) Attention in dichotic listening: affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental psychology, Volume 11, No. 1, pages 56-60.

Cognitive Psychology Attention

3. Research method

• Alltaskswerelaboratory-based,hadhighlevelsofcontrolandhadanIVandDV.Thereforetheywerealllaboratoryexperiments.

• Inalltasks,theapparatususedwasaBrenellMarkIVstereophonictaperecordermodifiedwithtwoamplifierstogivetwoindependentoutputsthroughattenuators,oneoutputgoingtoeachoftheearpiecesofapairofheadphones.Matchingforloudnesswasapproximate,byaskingparticipantstosaywhentwomessagesthatseemedequallyloudtotheexperimenterweresubjectivelyequaltothem.

Experiment 1Thisusedarepeatedmeasuresdesign.

Thisindependentvariables(IVs)were:

(i)thedichoticlisteningtest

(ii)therecognitiontest

Thedependentvariable(DV)was:thenumberofwordsrecognisedcorrectlyintherejectedmessage.

Experiment 2Thisusedanindependentmeasuresdesign.

Theindependentvariable(IV)was:whetherornotinstructionswereprefixedbytheparticipant’sownname.

Thedependentvariable(DV)was:thenumberofaffectiveinstructions.

Experiment 3Thisalsousedanindependentmeasuresdesign.

Theindependentvariables(IVs)were:

(i)whetherdigitswereinsertedintobothmessagesoronlyone

(ii)whetherparticipantshadtoanswerquestionsabouttheshadowedmessageattheendofeachpassageorwhetherparticipantshadtomerelyrememberallthenumberss/hecould.

Thedependentvariable(DV)was:thenumberofdigitscorrectlyreported.

4. Sample

• Participantswereundergraduatesandresearchworkersofbothsexes.

• ParticipantnumbersarenotgivenforExperiment1but12participantstookpartintheexperimentalconditionsinExperiment2andtwogroupsof14participantswereusedinExperiment3.

• Beforeeachexperimenttheparticipantsweregivenfourpassagesofprosetoshadowforpractice.Allpassagesthroughoutthestudywererecordedbyonemalespeaker.

Experiment 1• Ashortlistofsimplewordswasrepeatedlypresentedtooneoftheparticipant’searswhilsttheyshadowedaprosemessagepresentedtothe

otherear.(Thewordlistwasfadedinaftershadowinghadbegun,andwasequalinintensitytotheshadowedmessage.Attheendoftheprosepassageitwasfadedoutsoastobecomeinaudibleastheprosefinished.)

• Thewordlistwasrepeated35times.

• Theparticipantwasthenaskedtoreportallhecouldofthecontentoftherejectedmessage.

• S/hewasthengivenarecognitiontestusingsimilarmaterial,presentinneitherthelistnorthepassage,asacontrol.

• Thegapbetweentheendofshadowingandthebeginningoftherecognitiontestwasabout30seconds.

Experiment 2• Thisexperimentwasconductedtofindoutthelimitsoftheefficiencyoftheattentionalblock.

• Participantsshadowedtenshortpassagesoflightfiction.

• Theyweretoldthattheirresponseswouldberecordedandthattheobjectoftheexperimentwasforthemtotrytoscoreasfewmistakesaspossible.

• Insomeofthepassagesinstructionswereinterpolated,butintwoinstancestheparticipantswerenotwarnedofthese.

• Inhalfofthecaseswithinstructionsthesewereprefixedbytheparticipant’sownname.

• Theorderofpresentationisshownbelow:

Passage Instructions as start of passage Instructions within passage

1 Listentoyourrightear Allright,youmaystopnow.

2 Listentoyourrightear Noinstructions.

3 Listentoyourrightear JohnSmith,youmaystopnow.

4 Listentoyourrightear Noinstructions.

5 Listentoyourrightear Changetoyourotherear.

6 Listentoyourrightear Noinstruction.

7 Listentoyourrightear JohnSmith,changetoyouotherear.

8 Listentoyourrightear:youwillreceiveinstructionstochangeears. Changetoyourotherear.

• The‘noinstructions’passageswereinterpolatedinthetableatrandom.

• Thepassageswerereadinasteadymonotonevoiceatabout130wordsperminute.

• Participants’responsesweretape-recordedandlateranalysed.

Experiment 3• Experiment2indicatedthatinstructionsmightalterthesetofinstructionsaparticipantinsuchawayastoalterthechancesofmaterialinthe

rejectedmessagebeingperceived.Experiment3testedthispointfurther.

• Twogroupsof14participantsshadowedoneoftwosimultaneousdichoticmessages.

• Insomeofthemessagesdigitswereinterpolatedtowardstheendofthemessage.Theseweresometimespresentinbothmessages,sometimesonlyinone.Thepositionofthenumbersinthemessageandrelativetoeachotherinthetwomessageswerevaried,andcontrolswithnonumberswerealsoused,randomlyinserted.

• Onegroupofparticipantswastoldthatitwouldbeaskedquestionsaboutthecontentoftheshadowedmessageattheendofeachmessage,theothergroupwasspecificallyinstructedtorememberallthenumbersthatitcould.

6. Key findings

Experiment 1

Recognition scores for words from shadowed and rejected messages

-Therewasnotraceofmaterialfromtherejectedmessagebeingrecognised.

-Thedifferencebetweenthenewmaterialandthatfromtheshadowedmessagewassignificantatthe1percent.level.

• The30-seconddelaywasunlikelytohavecausedtherejectedmaterialtobelostbecausewordsfromearlyintheshadowedmessagewererecognised.

• ThesefindingssupportthosefoundbyCherry(1953).

Experiment 2• Mostparticipantsignoredtheinstructionsthatwerepresentedinthepassagestheywereshadowing,andsaidtheythoughtthiswasmerely

anattempttodistractthem.

Relative frequencies of hearing affective and non-affective instructions when presented In the rejected message

(pooledfor12participants)

Meannumberofwordsrecognised

Wordspresentedinshadowedmessage 4.9outof7

Wordspresentedinrejectedmessage 1.9outof7

Wordspresentedforthefirsttimeinrecognitiontest 2.6outof7

Affective(instructionsprecededbyname) Non-Affective(instructionsnotprecededbyname)

Numberoftimespresented 39 36

Numberoftimesheard 20 4

• Inasituationwhereaparticipantdirectshisattentiontothereceptionofamessagefromoneear,andrejectsamessagefromtheotherear,almostnoneoftheverbalcontentoftherejectedmessageisabletopenetratetheblocksetup.

• Ashortlistofsimplewordspresentedastherejectedmessageshowsnotraceofbeingrememberedevenwhenpresentedmanytimes.

• Subjectively‘important’messages,suchasaperson’sownname,canpenetratetheblock:thusapersonwillhearinstructionsiftheyarepresentedwiththeirownnameaspartoftherejectedmessage.

• Whileperhapsnotimpossible,itisverydifficulttomake‘neutral’materialimportantenoughtobreakthroughtheblocksetupindichoticshadowing.

6. Key findings

- Thereshouldhavebeen36setsofinstructionsprecededbytheparticipant’snamepresentedintherejectedmesssage.Howeverthediscrepancyisduetothreeparticipantswhoheardtheinstructionsandactuallychangedover,sothatthesecondsetofinstructionswhichwouldnormallyhavebeenheardaspartoftheshadowedmessagewerenowheardaspartoftherejectedmessage.Thesealloccurredinpassage10.

• Themeannumberofinstructionsheardwhenpresentedintherejectedmessagewascalculated,andthedifferencebetweenthe‘names’and‘nonames’wassignificant:t=3.05(significantatgreaterthanthe1percent.level,wheret=2.81.

• Ononly4outofthe20occasionsinwhichthe‘names’instructionswerehearddidtheparticipantsactuallymakeachangetotheothermessage.

Experiment 3• Thedifferencebetweenthemeannumberofdigitsreportedunderthetwoconditionsofsetwereanalysedandsubmittedtoattest.Innone

ofthecases,whetherthescorewasthemeannumberofdigitsspokenduringshadowing,norinthenumberreported,northesumofthesetwowasthedifferencesignificantevenatthe5%levelofconfidence.

• Focusedvisualattention:theclutteredscenesofeverydaylifepresentmoreobjectsthananindividualcanrespondtowardssimultaneously,andoftenmorethancanbefullyperceivedatanyonetime.Accordingly,mechanismsofattentionarerequiredtoselectobjectsofinterestforfurtherprocessing.Inthecaseofvision,onesuchmechanismisprovidedbyeyemovements,whichallowanindividualtofixateonparticularregionssotheybenefitfromthegreateracuityofthefovea(anareaatthebackoftheeyeresponsibleforcentral,sharpvision)(Driver,1996).

• Attentionisnecessaryforchangedetection.

• Changeblindness:individualsoftendonotdetectlargechangestoobjectsandscenesfromoneviewtothenext,particularlyifthoseobjectsarenotthecentreofinterestinthescene(Rensinketal,1997).

• Individualsperceiveandrememberonlythoseobjectsanddetailsthatreceivefocusedattention.

• Inattentionalblindness:whenattentionisdivertedtoanotherobjectortask.Observersoftenfailtoperceiveanunexpectedobject,evenifitappearsatfixation(e.g.MackandRock,1998).

• Avisuallydemandingtask‘loads’thebrain’sattentionsoanindividualbecomesincreasinglyblindtodistractionsandperformanceimprovesi.e.theharderonehastoconcentrate,thelesslikelyoneistobedistracted(e.g.Fisher,2007).

• Theoriesofdividedattentioninclude:Kahneman’slimitedcapacitytheory;Allport’s,Eysenck’s,Baddeley’smulti-channeltheories;SchneiderandShiffrin’sautomaticitymodel;NormanandShallice’sSAS(supervisoryattentionalsystem)model.

SIMONS, D. J. & CHABRIS, C. F. (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, Volume 28, pages 1059-1074.

2. Background to the story

• Previousstudieshadshownincreasinginterestintheissueoftheprecisionofvisualrepresentations.Inthesestudiesobservershadtoengageinacontinuoustaskthatrequiredthemtofocusononeaspectofadynamicvisualscenewhilstignoringothers.Atsomepointduringthetaskanunexpectedeventoccurred.Resultsshowedthatthemajorityofobserversdidnotreportseeingtheunexpectedeventeventhoughitwasclearlyvisibletoobserversnotengagedintheconcurrenttask(e.g.BecklenandCervone,1983;StoffregenandBecklen,1989).

• Althoughthesepreviousstudieshavehadprofoundimplicationsfortheunderstandingofperceptionwithandwithoutattention(e.g.changeblindness,inattentionalblindness),theempiricalapproachhasrecentlyfallenintodisuse.Onegoalofthisstudywasthereforetorevivetheempiricalapproachusedintheearlierstudies.

• Thisstudyincludesmuchinformationinto‘inattentionalblindness’bysuchauthorsasMackandRock(1998),RubinandHua(1998);and‘selectivelooking’byNeisserandBecklen(1975),Becklen,NeisserandLittman(1979),BecklenandCervone(1983),Stoffregenetal(1993);allofwhichhelpedtoformthebasisforthisstudy.

• Thisstudythereforebuildsonclassicstudiesofdividedvisualattentiontoexamineinattentionalblindnessforcomplexobjectsandeventsindynamicscenes.

• Toovercomethefactthatpreviousresearchdidnotsystematicallyconsidertheroleoftaskdifficultyindetection,andnodirectcomparisonsweremadebetweenperformancewithasuperimposedversionofthedisplaywithaliveversion,forthisstudyseveralvideosegmentswiththesamesetofactions,inthesamelocation,onthesamedaywerefilmed.Alargenumberofnaiveobserverswereaskedtowatchthevideorecordingsandlateranswerquestionsabouttheunexpectedevents.

3. Research method

• Thisisprimarilyalaboratoryexperimentthatusedanindependentmeasuresdesign.

• Theindependentvariables(IVs)werewhethertheparticipanttookpartin:

(i)TheTransparent/UmbrellaWomancondition

(ii)TheTransparent/Gorillacondition

(iii)TheOpaque/UmbrellaWomancondition

(iv)TheOpaqueGorillacondition.

3. Research method

(Fromlefttoright,toptobottom:Transparent/UmbrellaWoman,Transparent/Gorilla,Opaque/UmbrellaWoman,Opaque/Gorilla)

• Foreachofthefourdisplaystherewerefourtaskconditions:

(i)White/Easy

(ii)White/Hard

(iii)Black/Easy

(iv)Black/Hard.

3. Research method

• Overallthereweretherefore16individualconditions.

• Thedependentvariable(DV)wasthenumberofparticipantsineachofthe16conditionswhonoticedtheunexpectedevent(UmbrellaWomanorGorilla).

• AcontrolledobservationwassubsequentlyconductedinwhichparticipantswatchedadifferentvideoandhadtoattendtotheWhiteteamandengageintheEasymonitoringtask.

Materials• Fourvideotapes,each75secondsindurationwerecreated.

• Eachtapeshowedtwoteamsofthreeplayers,oneteamwearingwhiteshirts,theotherblackshirts.

• Playersmovedaroundinarelativelyrandomfashioninanopenareainfrontofabankofthreeelevatordoors.

• Themembersofeachteampassedastandardorangebasketballtooneanotherinastandardisedorder:player1→player2→player3→player1.Passeswereeitherbounceoraerial.Playerswouldalsodribbletheball,wavetheirarmsandmakeothermovementsconsistentwiththeiroverallpatternofaction.

• After44-48secondsofactioneitheroftwounexpectedeventsoccurred:intheUmbrella-Womancondition,atallwomanholdinganopenumbrellawalkedfromoffcameraononesideoftheactiontotheother,lefttoright.(Theactionsoftheplayers,andtheunexpectedeventweredesignedtomimicthestimuliusedinpreviousresearchbyNeisserandcolleagues.)IntheGorillacondition,ashorterwomanwearingagorillacostumethatfullycoveredherbodywalkedthroughtheactioninthesameway.Ineithercase,theunexpectedeventlasted5seconds,andtheplayerscontinuedtheiractionsduringandaftertheevent.

• Thereweretwostylesofvideo:intheTransparentcondition,thewhiteteam,blackteamandunexpectedeventwereallfilmedseparately,andthethreevideostreamswererenderedpartiallytransparentandthensuperimposedbyusingdigitalvideo-editingsoftware.IntheOpaquecondition,allsevenactorswerefilmedsimultaneouslyandcouldthusoccludeoneanotherandthebasketballs.(Thisrequiredsomerehearsalbeforefilmingtoeliminatecollisionsandotheraccidentsandtoachievenatural-lookingpatternsofmovement.)

• AllvideoswerefilmedwithanSVHSvideocameraandweredigitisedandeditedusinganonlineardigital-editingsystem.

• InaseparateOpaque-stylevideorecording,thegorillawalkedfromrighttoleftintothelivebasketball-passingevent,stoppedinthemiddleoftheplayersastheactioncontinuedallaroundit,turnedtofacethecamera,thumpeditschest,andthenresumedwalkingacrossthescreen.

4. Sample

• Fortheexperiment:228participants(referredtoas‘observers’throughouttheoriginalstudy),almostallundergraduatestudents.Eachparticipanteithervolunteeredtoparticipatewithoutcompensation,receivedalargecandybarforparticipating,orwaspaidasinglefeeforparticipatinginalargertestingsessionincludinganother,unrelatedexperiment.

• NB:datafrom36participantswerediscardedsoresultswereusedfrom192participants.Thesewereequallydistributedacrossthe16conditions.

• Forthecontrolledobservation:12differentparticipantswatchedthevideoinwhichthegorillathumpeditschest.

• Twenty-oneexperimenterstestedtheparticipants.Toensurestandardisationofproceduresawrittenprotocolwasdevisedandreviewedwiththeexperimentersbeforedatacollectionwasbegun.

• Allparticipantsweretestedindividuallyandgaveinformedconsentinadvance.

• Beforeviewingthevideotape,participantsweretoldtheywouldbewatchingtwoteamsofthreeplayerspassingbasketballsandthattheyshouldpayattentiontoeithertheteaminwhite(theWhitecondition)ortheteaminblack(theBlackcondition).

• Theyweretoldtokeepeitherasilentmentalcountofthetotalnumberofpassesmadebytheattendedteam(Easycondition)orseparatesilentmentalcountsofthenumberofbouncepassesandaerialpassesmadebytheattendedteam(Hardcondition).

• Afterviewingthevideotapeandperformingthemonitoringtask,participantswereimmediatelyaskedtowritedowntheircount(s)onpaper.

• Theywerethenaskedthefollowingadditionalquestions:

(i)Whileyouweredoingthecounting,didyounoticeanythingunusualinthevideo?

(ii)Didyounoticeanythingotherthanthesixplayers?

(iii)Didyouseeagorilla/womancarryinganumbrellawalkacrossthescreen?

• Afterany“yes”responses,participantswereaskedtoprovidedetailsofwhattheynoticed.Ifatanypointaparticipantmentionedtheunexpectedevent,theremainingquestionswereskipped.

• Afterquestioning,participantswereaskediftheyhadpreviouslyparticipatedinasimilarexperiment,heardofsuchanexperimentorheardofthegeneralphenomenon.Iftheysaid“yes”theywerereplacedandtheirdatawerediscarded.

• Participantsweredebriefed;thisincludedreplayingthevideotapeonrequest.

• Eachtestingsessionlasted5-10minutes.

6. Key findings

From the experiment;NB:datafrom36participantswerediscardedforthefollowingreasons:

(i)theyalreadyknewaboutthephenomenonand/orexperimentalparadigm(n=14)

(ii)theyreportedlosingcountofthepasses(n=9)

(iii)passeswereincompletelyorinaccuratelyrecorded(n=7)

(iv)answerscouldnotbeclearlyinterpreted(n=5)

(v)theparticipant’stotalpasscountwasmorethanthreestandarddeviationsawayfromthemeanoftheotherparticipantsinthecondition(n=1).

Theremaining192participantsweredistributedequallyacrossthe16conditionsofthe2x2x2x2design(twelvepercondition).

• Percentage of participants noticing the unexpected event in each condition

Easy task Hard task

Whiteteam Blackteam Whiteteam Blackteam

Transparent

UmbrellaWoman 58 92 33 42

Gorilla 8 67 8 25

Opaque

UmbrellaWoman 100 58 83 58

Gorilla 42 83 50 58

6. Key findings

• Outofall192participantsacrossallconditions,54%noticedtheunexpectedeventand46%failedtonoticetheunexpectedevent.

• MoreparticipantsnoticedtheunexpectedeventintheOpaquecondition(67%)thantheTransparentcondition(42%).

• EvenintheOpaqueconditionasubstantialproportionofparticipants(33%)failedtoreporttheevent,despiteitsvisibilityandtherepeatedquestionsaboutit.

• MoreparticipantsnoticedtheunexpectedeventintheEasy(64%)thantheHard(45%)condition.

• TheeffectoftaskdifficultywasgreaterintheTransparentcondition(Easy56%,Hard27%percondition)thanintheOpaquecondition(Easy71%,Hard62%,percondition).

• TheUmbrellaWomanwasnoticedmoreoftenthantheGorillaoverall(65%versus44%).Thisrelationheldregardlessofthevideotype,monitoringtaskorattendedteam.

• TheGorillawasnoticedbymoreparticipantswhoattendedtotheactionsoftheBlackteamthanthosewhowatchedtheWhiteteam(Black58%,White27%,percondition).

• HowevertherewaslittledifferencebetweenthoseattendingtotheBlackteamandthoseattendingtotheWhiteteaminnoticingtheUmbrellaWoman(Black62%,White66%,percondition).

From the controlled observation:• Only50%noticedtheevent(roughlythesameasthepercentagethatnoticedthenormalOpaque/Gorillawalkingevent(42%)underthesame

taskconditions).

• Individualshaveasustainedinattentionalblindnessfordynamicevents.

• Individualsfailtonoticeanongoingandhighlysalientbutunexpectedeventiftheyareengagedinaprimarymonitoringtask.

• Inattentionalblindnessisaubiquitousperceptualphenomenon(ratherthananartefactofparticulardisplayconditions).

• Thelevelofinattentionalblindnessdependsonthedifficultyoftheprimarytask.

• Individualsaremorelikelytonoticeunexpectedeventsiftheseeventsarevisuallysimilartotheeventstheyarepayingattentionto.

• Objectscanpassthroughthespatialextentofattentionalfocus(andthefovea)andstillnotbe‘seen’iftheyarenotspecificallybeingattendedto.

• Thereisnoconsciousperceptionwithoutattention.

• Atbirthwe’reallamoral,lackinganysystemofpersonalvaluesandjudgementsaboutwhatisrightandwrong.

• Inthefieldofmoraldevelopment,moralityisusuallydefinedasprinciplesforhowindividualsoughttotreatoneanother,withrespecttojustice,others’welfare,andrights.

• Themaintheoriesofmoraldevelopmentinclude:

• (a)Freud’spsychoanalytictheory(circa1930).Freudbelievedthatthepersonality(psychicapparatus)comprisesofthreeparts:theid,egoandsuperego.Theidcontainseverythingthatisinherited,thatispresentatbirth,theinstincts.Theegoisapartoftheidwhichbecomesmodifiedbythedirectinfluenceoftheexternalworldandrepresentsreasonandcommonsense,incontrasttothepsychewhichcontainsthepassions.Notuntilthesuperegohasdevelopedcanindividualsbedescribedasmoralbeings.Thesuperegorepresentstheinternalisationofparentalandsocialmoralvalues.Therearetwomainaspectsofthesuperego,theconscienceandtheego-ideal.Theconsciencerepresentsthepunishingparentandimposesfeelingsofguiltforimmoralthoughtsordeeds;whereastheego-idealrepresentstherewardingparentandisresponsibleforfeelingsofprideandsatisfaction,for‘good’thoughtsordeeds.

• Freudproposedtheexistenceofatensionbetweentheneedsofsocietyandtheindividual.AccordingtoFreud,themoraldevelopmentproceedswhentheindividual’sselfishdesiresarerepressedandreplacedbythevaluesofimportantsocialisingagentsinone’slifesuchasparents.

• (b)Skinner’sbehaviouristtheory(1938).Skinner,likeFreud,focusedonsocialisationastheprimaryforcebehindmoraldevelopment.IncontrasttoFreud’snotionofastrugglebetweeninternalandexternalforces,Skinnerfocusedonthepowerofexternalforces(reinforcementcontingencies)toshapeanindividual’sdevelopment.

• (c)Piaget’scognitivetheory(1965).Piagetfocusedontheindividual’sconstruction,construalandinterpretationofmoralityfromasocial-cognitiveandsocial-emotionalperspective.Tounderstandadultmorality,Piagetbelievedthatitwasnecessarytostudybothhowmoralitymanifestsinthechild’sworldandthefactorsthatcontributetotheemergenceofcentralmoralconceptssuchaswelfare,justiceandrights.Interviewingchildrenusingtheclinicalinterviewmethod,Piagetarguedthatyoungchildren(tenyearsofageandyounger)werefocusedonauthoritymandates,andthatwithagechildrenbecomeautonomous,evaluatingactionsfromasetofindependentprinciplesofmorality.

KOHLBERG, L. (1968) The child as a moral philosopher. Psychology Today, Volume 2, No. 4, pages 24-30.

Developmental Psychology MoralDevelopment

• TheearliestmajorpsychologicalstudyofmoralcharacterwasconductedbyHartshorneandMay(1928-30).Thestudyfocusedonavarietyofvirtuesincludinghonesty,service(altruismorgenerosity),andself-control.Theirfindingsshowedtherewerenopersonalitytraits,psychologicaldispositionsorentitieswhichcorrespondtowordslikehonest,serviceandself-control.

• KohlbergwasinspiredbyPiaget’spioneeringefforttoapplyastructuralapproachtomoraldevelopmentratherthanlinkingittopersonalitytraits.HethereforeexpandedonPiagetiannotionsofmoraldevelopmentandsawmoraldevelopmentasamoregradualprocessthanPiaget.Heprovidedasystematicthree-level,six-stagesequenceofdevelopmentwhichreflectedchangesinmoraljudgementthroughoutthelifespan.Specifically,Kohlbergarguedthatdevelopmentproceedsfromaselfishdesiretoavoidpunishment(personal),toaconcernforgroupfunctioning(societal),toaconcernfortheconsistentapplicationofuniversalethicalprinciples.

• OvertheyearsKohlberggraduallyelaboratedatypologicalschemewhichdescribedgeneralstructuresandformsofmoralthoughtwhichcanbedefinedindependentlyofthespecificcontentofparticularmoraldecisionsoractions.

• Thetypologycontainsthreedistinctlevelsofmoralthinking,andwithineachoftheselevelsdistinguishestworelatedstages,

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development- Everyoneprogressesthroughthelevelsandstagesinorder.

• InthisstudyKohlbergaimedtofindevidencetosupporthistheoryofmoraldevelopment.

Level Stage Moral reasoning shown

1.Preconventional(usuallyoccupieschildrenaged4-10)

1.Punishmentandobedienceorientation Rulesarekepttoavoidpunishment

2.Instrumental-relativistorientation ‘Right’behaviouristhatwhichultimatelybringsrewardstooneself

2.Conventional 3.Goodboy-goodgirlorientation ‘Good’behaviouriswhatpleasesothers–conformitytogoodness

4.Lawandorderorientation Doingone’sduty,obeyinglawsisimportant

3.Post-conventional 5.Socialcontractorientation ‘Right’iswhatisdemocraticallyagreedupon

6.Universalprinciplesorientation

Moralactionistakenbaseduponself-chosenprinciples

3. Research method

• Thiswasalongitudinalstudywhichfollowedthedevelopmentofthesamegroupofboysfor12yearsbypresentingthemwithhypotheticalmoraldilemmas,alldeliberatelyphilosophical,someofthemfoundinmedievalworksofcasuistry.Theaimwastoshowhow,asyoungadolescentsdevelopintoyoungmanhood,theymovethroughthedistinctlevelsandstagesofmoraldevelopmentproposedbyKohlberginhistheoryofmoraldevelopment.

• Kohlbergalsostudiedmoraldevelopmentinotherculturesusinghypotheticalmoraldilemmas.Thisstudythereforehasacross-culturalelement.

4. Sample

• 75Americanboyswhowereaged10-16atthestartofthestudywerefollowedatthree-yearintervalsthroughtoages22-28.

• MoraldevelopmentwasalsostudiedinboysofotherculturesincludingGreatBritain,Canada,Taiwan,MexicoandTurkey.

Using 75 American boys• Participantswerepresentedwithhypotheticalmoraldilemmasintheformofshortstoriestosolve.

• Thestoriesweretodetermineeachparticipant’sstageofmoralreasoningforeachof25moralconcepts/aspects.

• Aspectsassessedincluded:

- MotiveGivenforRuleObedienceorMoralAction

- Thevalueofhumanlife:testedbyaskingtheparticipant:

Aged10:“Isitbettertosavethelifeofoneimportantpersonoralotofunimportantpeople?”

Aged13,16,20and24:“Shouldthedoctor‘mercykill’afatallyillwomanrequestingdeathbecauseofherpain?”

Using different cultures• Taiwaneseboys,aged10-13,wereaskedaboutastoryinvolvingtheftoffood:“Aman’swifeisstarvingtodeathbutthestoreownerwon’tgive

themananyfoodunlesshecanpay,whichhecan’t.Shouldhebreakinandstealsomefood?Why?”

• YoungboysinGreatBritain,Canada,MexicoandTurkeyweretestedinasimilarway.

6. Key findings

In relation to ‘Motive Given for Rule Obedience or Moral Action’: EachofKohlberg’ssixstageswereshownasfollows:

1:Obeyrulestoavoidpunishment.

2:Conformtoobtainrewards,havefavoursreturnedetc.

3.Conformtoavoiddisapproval,dislikebyothers.

4.Conformtoavoidcensurebylegitimateauthoritiesandresultantguilt.

5.Conformtomaintaintherespectoftheimpartialspectatorjudgingintermsofcommunitywelfare.

6.Conformtoavoidself-condemnation.

In relation to the ‘value of human life’: Thesixstageswereshownasfollows:

1.Thevalueofahumanlifeisconfusedwiththevalueofphysicalobjectsandisbasedonthesocialstatusorphysicalattributesofitspossessor.

6. Key findings

2.Thevalueofhumanlifeisseenasinstrumentaltothesatisfactionoftheneedsofitspossessororofotherpeople.

3.Thevalueofhumanlifeisbasedontheempathyandaffectionoffamilymembersandotherstowarditspossessor.

4.Lifeisconceivedassacredintermsofitsplaceinacategoricalmoralorreligiousorderofrightsandduties.

5.Lifeisvaluedbothintermsofitsrelationtocommunitywelfareandintermsoflifebeingauniversalhumanright.

6.Beliefinthesacrednessofhumanlifeasrepresentingauniversalhumanvalueofrespectfortheindividual.

• InhisstudyKohlberggivesexamplesofhowboysinhisresearchdemonstratedeachstageofmoralreasoningandhowvalueschangeasindividualsprogressthroughthestages.

• Resultsshowedthatabout50%ofeachofthesixstagesaparticipant’sthinkingwasatasinglestage,regardlessofthemoraldilemmainvolvedandparticipantsshowedprogressthroughthestageswithincreasedage.

• NotallparticipantsovertheperiodofthestudyprogressedthroughallthestagesandreachedStage-6.

• Participantsprogressedthroughthestagesoneatatimeandalwaysinthesameorder.

• Onceaparticipanthadreachedaparticularstage,theyeitherstoppedorcontinuedtomoveupward.NoadultsinStage-4hadbeenthroughStage-6,butallStage-6adultshadgonethroughatleastStage-4.

• Achildatanearlierstageofdevelopmenttendstomoveforwardwhenconfrontedwiththeviewsofachildonestagefurtheralongandtheyseemtopreferthisnextstage.

Cross-cultural findings:• Taiwaneseboysaged10-13tendedtogive‘classic’Stage-2responses.

• Middle-classurbanboysaged10intheUS,TaiwanandMexicoshowedtheorderofuseofeachstagetobethesameastheorderofitsdifficultyormaturity.

• IntheUS,byage16,Stage-6wasrarelyused.Atage13,thegood-boy,middlestage(Stage-3)wasnotused.

• MexicoandTaiwanshowedthesameresultsexceptthatdevelopmentwasalittleslower.

• Attheageof16,Stage-5thinkingwasmuchmoresalientintheUSthaneitherMexicoorTaiwan.

• Resultsfortwoisolatedvillages,oneinYacatan,oneinTurkey,alsoshowedthatmoralthoughtincreasedsteadilyfromages10-16thoughithadnotachievedaclearascendencyoverpreconventionalthought.

• Trendsforlower-classurbangroupswereintermediateintherateofdevelopmentbetweenthoseformiddle-classandforvillageboys.Inthesethreedivergentculturestherefore,middle-classchildrenwerefoundtobemoreadvancedinmoraljudgementthanmatchedlower-classchildren.

• NoimportantdifferenceswerefoundinthedevelopmentofmoralthinkingamongCatholics,Protestants,Jews,Buddhists,Moslemsoratheists.

• Thereisaninvariantdevelopmentalsequenceinanindividual’smoraldevelopment.

• Eachstageofmoraldevelopmentcomesoneatatimeandalwaysinthesameorder.

• Anindividualmaystopatanygivenstageandatanyage.

• MoraldevelopmentfitswithKohlberg’sstage-patterntheory.

• Thereisaculturaluniversalityofsequenceofstages.

• Middle-classandworking-classchildrenmovethroughthesamesequencebutmiddle-classchildrenmovefasterandfurther.

• This6-Stagetheoryofmoraldevelopmentisnotsignificantlyaffectedbywidelyrangingsocial,culturalorreligiousconditions.Theonlythingthatisaffectedistherateatwhichindividualsprogressthroughthesequence.

• Children’smoraljudgementsaboutlyingandtruthtellingprimarilyrelyontheextenttowhichaverbalstatementdiffersfromfactualityandwhetherornotthelieispunished.Notuntilaround11yearsofagedochildrenbegintousetheprotagonist’sintentionasthekeyfactoroftheirmoraljudgements(Piaget1932/1965).

• OtherresearchersdisagreewithPiaget’sclaimthattheuseofintentionemergesatonlyaround11yearsofage.Thereisnowageneralconsensusthatpreschoolchildrenandyoungschool-agedchildrenaredistinctlycapableofdistinguishinglyingfrombehaviouralmisdeedsandcanmakeconsistentandaccuratemoraljudgementsinasimilarwaytothatofolderchildrenandadultswhenboththefalsityofastatementandthespeaker’sintentiontodeceivearehighlightede.g.Wimmeretal,1984.

• ThefollowingtheoriesofmoraldevelopmentarereferredtointheoverviewofKohlberg’sstudy,‘Thechildasamoralphilosopher’:

(a)Freud’spsychoanalytictheory

(b)Skinner’sbehaviouristtheory

(c)Piaget’scognitivetheory

(d)Kohlberg’scognitivetheory.

• Sweetser(1987)proposedafolkloristicmodeloflying.Shesuggestedthattheconceptoflyingisnotsimplyacognitiveconstructdefinedbysuchkeysemanticfeaturesasfactuality(whetherastatementreflectsthetruth),intention(whetherthespeakerintendstodeceive),andbelief(whetherthespeakerbelievesthestatement)alone,butitisalsoasocio-culturalconstruct.Shearguedthattheunderstandingoflyingisgreatlyinfluencedbytheculturalnormsandmoralvaluesinwhichindividualsaresocialised.However,untilthisstudy,littlesystematicdevelopmentalevidencehadbeenfoundtosupportthisproposal.

• Kohlbergconductedcross-culturalresearchtosupporthistheoryofmoraldevelopment,butdidnotspecificallyfocusonthe‘artoflying’.

LEE, K., CAMERON, C., XU, F., FU,G. & BOARD, J. (1997) Chinese and Canadian children’s evaluations of lying and truth telling: Similarities and differences in the context of pro- and antisocial behaviours. Child Development, Volume 68, No. 5, pages 924-934

• Children’sunderstandingandmoraljudgementoflyingandtruthtellingwasanearlytopicofinvestigationindevelopmentalpsychologye.g.Binet,1896;Hall,1891.

• Sincetheearly1980s,developmentalpsychologistshaveshowedrenewedinterestinchildren’sunderstandingandmoraljudgementsoflyingandtruthtellinge.g.Wimmer,Gruber&Perner,1984;Peterson,1995.

• Despitetheadvancesofresearchinrecentyears,understandingofthedevelopmentofchildren’smoraldevelopmentoflyingisstillsomewhatrestricted.OneofthelimitationsisthatnearlyallpreviousresearchwasconductedwithchildreninWesterncountries.Thesechildrenwereraisedinindustrialisedenvironmentsthatemphasiseindividualism,self-assertion/promotionandcompetition.Itwasthereforeunclearwhetherthefindingswiththesechildrencouldbegeneralisedtochildrenofothersocio-culturalbackgrounds.

• Thisstudywasconductedtobridgethegapbetweenthisliteraturebydirectlytestingthepositedeffectofcultureonchildren’smoralevaluationsoflyingandtruthtelling.

• ThisstudycomparesthemoraljudgementsofCanadianchildrenandChinesechildrenfromthePeople’sRepublicofChina(PRC)insituationsinwhichpro-andantisocialactionsweredeniedoracknowledged.

• TheoriginalstudycontainsadetailedjustificationforwhyChinesechildreninthePRCwerecomparedwithchildrenfromtheWesterncultureofCanada.

3. Research method

• Thiswasalaboratoryexperimentwhichusedanindependentmeasuresdesign.

• Theindependentvariables(IVs)were:

(i)whethertheparticipantheardthesocialstoryorthephysicalstory

(ii)whethertheparticipantheard(prosocial)storiesinvolvingachildwhointentionallycarriedoutagooddeed(adeedvaluedbyadultsinbothcountries)or(antisocial)storiesinvolvingachildwhointentionallycarriedoutabaddeed(adeedviewednegativelyinbothcultures).

Therewerethereforefourconditions:ProsocialBehaviour/Truth-Tellingstories,ProsocialBehaviour/Lie-Tellingstories,AntisocialBehaviour/Truth-Tellingstories,AntisocialBehaviour/Lie-Tellingstories.

• Thedependentvariables(DVs)were:

(i)theratinggiventothestorycharacter’sdeed(rangingbetweenvery,verygoodandvery,verynaughty)

(ii)theratinggiventowhatthecharactersaid(verbalstatement)(rangingbetweenvery,verygoodandvery,verynaughty).

• Thefactthatparticipantswerereadfourscenarios(twoprosocialandtwoantisocial)andaskedtoapplythesameratingscaletoboththecharacter’sdeedanditsresponseineachstorymeansthestudyhadelementsofarepeatedmeasuresdesignwithinit.

4. Sample

• 120Chinesechildren:407-year-olds(Mage=7.5years,20male,20female),409-year-olds(Mage=9.4years,20male,20female),and4011-year-olds(Mage=11.3years,20male,20female).TheywererecruitedfromelementaryschoolsinHangzhou,ZhejiangProvince,amedium-sizedcity(provincialcapital)inthePRC.

• 108Canadianchildren:367-year-olds(Mage=7.4years,20male,16female),409-year-olds(M=9.6years,24male,16female),3211-year-olds(Mage=11.5years,14male,18female).TheywererecruitedfromelementaryschoolsinFredericton,NewBrunswick,Canada.LikeHangzhou,FrederictonisaprovincialcapitalbutitspopulationisconsiderablysmallerthanHangzhou.

• Althoughthesocio-economicstatusoftheChinesechildrenwasnotknown(nosuchcategorisationexistsinthePRC),mostCanadianchildrenwerefrommiddle-classfamilies.

• HalfoftheChinesechildrenparticipatedinthesocialstoryconditionandtheotherhalfwereplacedinthephysicalstorycondition.Thechildrenwererandomlyassignedtoeachcondition.

• FromtheCanadiansample:197-year-olds,209-year-oldsand1711-year-oldswererandomlyassignedtothesocialstoryconditionandtheotherchildrenwereassignedtothephysicalstorycondition.

Materials• Participantswerereadfourscenariosaccompaniedbyillustrations,twoprosocial,twoantisocial.All8storiescanbefoundinAppendixofthe

originalarticle,howevertheProsocialBehaviour/Lie-Tellingstorywentasfollows:

HereisAlex.Alex’sclasshadtostayinsideatrecesstimebecauseofbadweather,soAlexdecidedtotidyuptheclassroomforhisteacher.

(Question1:IswhatAlexdidgoodornaughty?)

SoAlexcleanedtheclassroom,andwhentheteacherreturnedafterrecess,shesaidtoherstudents,“Oh,Iseethatsomeonehascleanedtheclassroomforme.”TheteacherthenaskedAlex,“Doyouknowwhocleanedtheclassroom?”Alexsaidtohisteacher,“Ididnotdoit.”

(Question2:IswhatAlexdidgoodornaughty?)

• Eachparticipantwastestedindividually.

• Participantswerefirstinstructedaboutthemeaningofthewordsandthesymbolsforratingthedeedsandverbalstatementsona7-pointratingchart.Thesewere:very,verygood(3redstars),verygood(2redstars),good(1redstar),neithergoodnotnaughty(bluecircle),naughty(1blackcross),verynaughty(2blackcrosses),very,verynaughty(3blackcrosses).

• Participantswerethenreadeitherthefoursocialorfourphysicalstories.Thestory’s‘deed’sectionwasreadfirstandthentheywouldindicatetheirratingeitherverbally,non-verballyorbothontheratingchart.

• Theywerethenreadthesecondsectionofthestoryandwouldthenindicate,inthesameway,theirratingforthecharacter’sverbalstatement.

• Themeaningofeachsymbolwasrepeatedeverytimeaquestionwasasked.

• Thewords‘good’and‘naughty’,inthetwoquestionswerealteredwithinsubjects.

• Tocontrolforordereffects,foreachcondition,twoordersofthefourstorieswerefirstdeterminedusingarandomisationtable.Abouthalfoftheparticipantsineachconditionwerereadthestoriesinonepredeterminedorder,andtheotherhalfwerereadthemintheotherorder.

• Participantsweretheninvolvedinpost-experimentaldiscussions.

6. Key findings

NB:Participants’ratingswereconvertedaccordingtothefollowingscale:very,verygood=3,verygood=2,good=1,neithergoodnornaughty=0,naughty=1,verynaughty=2,very,verynaughty=3.

Preliminaryanalysesoftheeffectsoforderandgendershowednosignificantdifferencessothedataforthesetwodimensionswerecombinedforsubsequentanalyses.

• Prosocial Behaviour/Truth-Telling Situations:Aplanned2(culture:CanadianandChinese)x2(condition:physicalandsocialstories)x3(age:7,9,11years)analysisofcovariancewiththeratingsofdeedsascovariateswasconductedonparticipants’ratingsoftruthtelling.Thecovariatewasnotsignificant,t(1)=.34ns;indicatingthatchildrenofbothculturesratedtheprosocialbehaviourssimilarly.TheageandculturemaineffectsweresignificantwithCanadianchildrenateachagegivingsimilarratingstotruthtellingwhereasChinesechildren’sratingsbecamelesspositiveasageincreased.Theconditionmaineffectwasnotsignificant.

• Prosocial behaviour/Lie-Telling Situations:- Aplanned2x2x3analysisofcovariancewiththeratingsofdeedsascovariateswasconductedonparticipants’ratingsoflietelling.The

covariatewassignificant,t(1)=2.88,p≤.01,indicatingthatchildrenfromthetwoculturesratedtheprosocialbehavioursdifferentlybothindifferentagegroupsandinthetwoconditions.Afterpartialingouttheeffectof,theageandculturemaineffectsremainedsignificant.Theconditionmaineffectwasnotsignificant.Onlytheinteractionbetweenageandculturewasthereforesignificant.

- Overall,Canadianchildrenratedlietellinginthissituationnegativelybutasageincreasedtheirratingsbecamesomewhatlessnegative.

- Overall,Chinesechildren’sratingsoflietellinginthissituationchangedfromnegativetopositiveasageincreased.

• Antisocial Behaviour/Truth-Telling Situations:- Aplanned2x2x3analysisofcovariancewiththeratingsofdeedsascovariateswasconductedonparticipants’ratingsoftruthtelling.

Thecovariatewasnotsignificant,t(1)=-1.51,ns,indicatingthatchildrenfrombothculturesratedtheantisocialbehaviourssimilarly.Nomaineffectorinteractionwassignificant.

- Childrenfrombothculturesratedtruthtellinginthissituationverypositively.

6. Key findings

• Antisocial behaviour/Lie-Telling Situations:- Aplanned2x2x3analysisofcovariancewiththeratingsofdeedsascovariateswasconductedonparticipants’ratingsoflietelling.The

covariatewassignificant,t(1)=4.96,p≤.01,indicatingthatchildrenofbothculturesratedtheantisocialbehavioursdifferentlyindifferentagegroupsinthetwoconditions.Afterpartialingouttheeffectofthecovariates,theagemaineffectremainedsignificant.Thecultureandconditionsmaineffectswerenotsignificant.Onlytheinteractionbetweenage,cultureandconditionwassignificant.

- BothChineseandCanadianchildrenratedlietellingnegativelyinthiscondition.

- Overall,negativeratingsincreasedwithage,irrespectiveofculture.

- Chinese7-year-oldsratedlietellinglessnegativelythenolderchildreninthephysicalstorycondition,whereasCanadian7-year-oldsratedlietellinglessnegativelythanolderchildreninthesocialstorycondition.

• Intherealmoflyingandtruthtelling,acloserelationshipbetweensocio-culturalpracticesandmoraljudgementsexists.

• Specificsocialandculturalnormshaveanimpactonchildren’sdevelopingmoraljudgements,whichinturn,aremodifiedbyageandexperienceinaparticularculture.

• ChinesechildrenratetruthtellinginprosocialsituationslesspositivelyandlietellinginthesamesituationslessnegativelythanCanadianchildren.

• BothChineseandCanadianchildrenshowsimilarmoralevaluationsoflietellingandtruthtellingrelatedtoantisocialbehaviours.

• Theemphasisonself-effacementandmodestyinChinesecultureincreasinglyexertsitsimpactonChinesechildren’smoraljudgements.

• Moraldevelopmentisahighlycontextualisedprocessandisaffectedbythecultureand/orsocialenvironmentinwhichindividualsaresocialised.

• Catintelligenceisthecapacityofthedomesticatedcattolearn,solveproblemsandadapttoitsenvironment.

• AccordingtoresearchersatTuftsUniversitySchoolofVetinaryMedicineinBoston,thephysicalstructureofthebrainsofhumansandcatsisverysimilar:bothhavecerebralcorticeswithsimilarlobes,botharegyrencephalici.e.theyhaveasurfacefolding,bothhavegreyandwhitematter.

• Thethalamusofacat,constitutingahypothalamus,epithalamusanddorsalpartsandincludingalateralgeniculatenucleus,andadditionalsecondarynuclearstructuresareresponsibleforcontrollingimpulsestothecortex,functionsofsleep,memoryoriginallyformedofsensorydataandothercellularfunctioning.

• Kittens’brainshaveaneuroplasticity:controlofvisualstimulicorrelatedwithchangesinRNAstructures:catspossessvisual-recognitionmemoryandhaveflexibilityofcerebralencodingfromvisualinformation,adaptabilitycorrespondingtochangingenvironmentalstimuli(Grouseetal,1979;Okujavetal,2005,Okujavetal,2009).

• Inanormalcat,neuronesofthevisualcortexareselectivefortheorientationoflinesandedgesinthevisualfield,andthepreferredorientationsofdifferentcellsaredistributedallaroundtheclock(Hubel&Wiesel,1962).

• HirschandSpinelli(1970)reportedthatearlyvisualexperiencecanchangeneuralorganisationinkittens.Theyrearedkittenswithoneeyeviewingverticalstripes,theotherhorizontalandfoundthatoutof21neuroneswithelongatedreceptivefieldsallweremonocularlydriven,andinallbutonecasetheorientationofthereceptivefieldcloselymatchedthepatternexperiencedbythateye.

• BlakemoreandCooperthereforebeganarelatedprojectandthisstudyisapreliminaryreportoftheirfindings.

• TheirapproachisslightlydifferenttothatofHirschandSpinelliinthattheyallowedkittensnormalbinocularvisioninanenvironmentconsistingentirelyofhorizontalorverticalstripes.(Monocularvisionisvisioninwhicheacheyeisusedseparatelywhereasbinocularvisionisvisioninwhichbotheyesareusedtogether).

• Theaimofthisstudywasthereforetoinvestigatethedevelopmentoftheprimaryvisualcortex(incats)andtofindoutifsomeofitspropertiessuchasorientationselectivityareinnate(assuggestedbyHubelandWiesel)orlearned.

BLAKEMORE, C. & COOPER, G. F. (1970) Development of the brain depends on the visual environment. Nature, Volume 228, pages 477-478.

Biological Psychology Brainplasticity

3. Research method

• Thiswasalaboratoryexperimentwhichusedanindependentmeasuresdesign.

• Theindependentvariable(IV)was:whetherthekittenswererearedinahorizontaloraverticalenvironment.

• Thedependentvariable(DV)wastheirvisuomotorbehaviouroncetheywereplacedinanilluminatedenvironmenti.e.whetherthehorizontallyraisedkittenscoulddetectverticallyalignedobjectsand/oriftheverticallyraisedkittenscoulddetecthorizontallyalignedobjects.

4. Sample

• Kittens(studiedfrombirthuntilthisreportwascompiled)wererandomlyallocatedtooneofthetwoconditions.

• Twoofthekittens(onerearedinahorizontalandoneinaverticalenvironment)wereusedtostudyneurophysicaleffects.

• Thekittenswerehousedfrombirthinacompletelydarkroom.

• Fromtheageoftwoweekstheywereputintoaspecialapparatusforanaverageofaboutfivehoursperday.Thekittenstoodonaclearglassplatforminsideatallcylindertheentireinnersurfaceofwhichwascoveredwithhighcontrastblack-and-whitestripes,eitherverticalorhorizontal.Therewerenocornerstoitsenvironment,noedgestoitsfloorandtheupperandlowerlimitstoitsworldofstripeswerealongwayaway.Itcouldnotevenseeitsbodyasitworeawideblackcollarthatrestricteditsvisualfieldtoawidthofabout130o(Thekittensdidnotseemupsetbythemonotonyoftheirsurroundingsandsatforlongperiodsinspectingthewallsofthetube.)

• Thisroutinewasstoppedwhenthekittenswere5monthsold(wellbeyondthe‘criticalperiod’inwhichtotalvisualdeprivationcausesphysiologicaldeficits,Hubel&Weisel,1970).

• Thekittenswerethentakenforseveralhourseachweekfromtheirdarkcagetoasmall,well-litroom,furnishedwithtablesandchairs.

• Theirvisualreactionswereobservedandrecorded/noted.

• At7.5months,twoofthekittens(onerearedinthehorizontalandonerearedintheverticalenvironment)wereanaesthetisedsotheirneurophysiologycouldbeexamined.

6. Some key findings

• Regardlessofwhetherthekittenshadbeenexposedtoverticalorhorizontalstripes,theywereinitiallyextremelyvisuallyimpaired:

- Theirpapillaryreflexeswerenormalbuttheyshowednovisualplacingwhenbroughtuptoatabletopandnostartleresponsewhenanobjectwasthrusttowardsthem.

- Theyguidedthemselvesmainlybytouch.

- Theywerefrightenedwhentheyreachedtheedgeofthesurfacetheywerestandingon.

- Theyshowed‘behaviouralblindness’inthatthekittensraisedinthehorizontalenvironmentcouldnotdetectverticallyalignedobjectsandviceversa.

- Onlytheeyesofthekittenbroughtupinverticalstripesfollowedarodheldverticallyandonlytheeyesofthekittenrearedinhorizontalstripesfollowedtherodifitwasheldhorizontallyi.e.bothkittensremainedblindtocontoursperpendiculartothestripestheyhadlivedwith.

• Thekittensquicklyrecoveredfrommanyofthedeficienciesandwithinatotalofabout10hoursofnormalvisiontheyshowedstartledresponsesandvisualplacingandwouldjumpwitheasefromachairtothefloor.

• However,someoftheirdefectswerepermanent:

- Theyalwaysfollowedmovingobjectswithveryclumsy,jerkyheadmovements.

- Theyoftentriedtotouchthingsmovingontheothersideoftheroom,wellbeyondtheirreach.

• Theneurophysiologicalexaminationshowed:

- Noevidenceofsevereastigmatism,whichmighthaveexplainedthebehaviouralresponses.

- Horizontalplanerecognitioncellsdidnot‘fire-off’inthekittenfromtheverticalenvironmentandverticalplanecellsdidnot‘fire-off’inthekittenfromthehorizontalenvironmentsotherewasdistinctorientationselectivity,showingthekittenssufferedfrom‘physicalblindness’.

- About75%ofcellsinbothcatswereclearlybinocularandinalmosteverywaytheresponseswerelikethatofanormalkitten.

- Thedistributionsofpreferredorientationwerehowevertotallyabnormal:notoneneuronehaditsoptimalorientationwithin20ooftheinappropriateaxisandtherewere,intotal,onlytwelvewithin45oofit.Thisanisotropy(thepropertyofbeingdirectionallydependent)wassignificantatp≤0.00001:chisquaredtest.

- Noobviouslargeregionsof‘silent’cortexcorrespondingtothe‘missing’corticalcolumnswereobserved/found.

• Visualexperiencesintheearlylifeofkittenscanmodifytheirbrainsandhaveprofoundperceptualconsequences.

• Akitten’svisualcortexmayadjustitselfduringmaturationtothenatureofitsvisualexperience.

• Akitten’snervoussystemadaptstomatchtheprobabilityofoccurrenceoffeaturesofitsvisualinput.

• Braindevelopmentisdeterminedbythefunctionaldemandsmadeuponit,ratherthanpre-programmedgeneticfactors.

• Theenvironmentcandetermineperceptionatbothabehaviouralandphysiologicallevel–atleastincats.Itisquestionableastowhetherresultscanbegeneralisedtohumans.

MAGUIRE, E. A., GADIAN, D. G., JOHNSRUDE, I. S., GOOD, C. D., ASHBURNER, J., FRACKOWIAK, R. S. & FRITH, C. D. (2000) Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Volume 97, No. 8, pages 4398-4403.

• Thehippocampusisoneofthemajorstructuresofthelimbicsystem.Thehumanlimbicsystemisverysimilartothatofprimitiveanimalsandisoftenreferredtoasthe‘oldmammalianbrain’.Itiscloselyinvolvedwithbehavioursthatsatisfycertainmotivational,learningandemotionalneedsincludingfeeding,fighting,escape,andmating.

• Thehippocampusplaysanimportantroleinthelayingdownofnewmemories.Itisfoundinsideeachhemisphereofthebrainandisthoughttoplayanimportantroleinfacilitatingspatialmemoryandnavigation.Recentresearch,suchasthisstudy,hasindicatedthatlesionstothehippocampusaffectanindividual’sabilitytorememberthelocationofdifferentplacesandthings.

• Researchhasshownincreasedhippocampalvolumerelativetobrainandbodysizeinsmallmammalsandbirdswhoshowbehaviourrequiringspatialmemorye.g.foodstoring.

• Insomespecies,hippocampalvolumesenlargespecificallyduringseasonswhenspatialabilityisgreatest.

• Researchhasalsoshownthattherearedifferencesinthestructureofhealthyhumanbrainse.g.betweenmalesandfemales,musiciansandnon-musicians.

• Howeverpastresearchhasnotshown:

(i)Whetherdifferencesinbrainstructureissusceptibletoplasticchangeinresponsetoenvironmentalstimulation.

(ii)Thepreciseroleofthehippocampusinhumans.

(iii)Whetherthehumanbrainrespondstoexperiencesrequiringspatialmemoryinthesamewayassmallermammalsandbirds.

• Maguirethereforeaimedtoshowthatthehippocampusinthehumanbrainisthestructureassociatedwithspatialmemoryandnavigation.

• HersampleofLondontaxidriverswasidealbecausetheyhavetoacquireextensivespatialandnavigationalinformation(passTheKnowledge)onthecityofLondontogaintheirtaxidrivinglicence.

• Heruseofagroupoftaxidriverswithawiderangeofnavigationalexperienceallowedhertoexaminethedirecteffectofspatialexperienceonbrainstructure.

3. Research method

• Thiswasaquasi/naturalexperimentbecausetheindependentvariable(IV)–whethertheparticipantwasaLondontaxidriverorapersonwhodidnotdrivetaxis–wasnaturallyvaryingandsocouldnotbemanipulatedorcontrolledbytheresearchers.Thedependentvariable(DV)wasthevolumeofthehippocampiincludingtheiranterior,bodyandposteriorregions;measuredbyanalysingMRIscansofparticipants’brainusingthetwotechniquesofVBMandpixelcounting.

• Thestudyusedanindependentmeasures,matchedparticipantsdesign.

4. Sample

• Theexperimentalgroupof16taxidriverswereallhealthy,right-handed,maleLondontaxidrivers,meanage44years(range32-62years),meantimeasalicensedLondontaxidriver(passedTheKnowledge)14.3years(range1.5-42years).

• Thecontrolgroupwhodidnotdrivetaxis(50fortheVBManalysis,16forthepixelcounting)werematchedforhealth,handedness,sex,meanageandagerange.

• ThescansofthecontrolgroupwereselectedfromthestructuralMRIscandatabaseatthesameunitwherethetaxidriverswerescanned.• TheMRIscansofallparticipantswereanalysedusing:

(i)VBM(voxel-basedmorphometry)whichisanautomaticprocedurethat‘normalises’thescanstoatemplatetoeliminateoverallbrainsizeasavariableandthenidentifiesdifferencesingreymatterdensityindifferentregionsofthebrain.Thebrainsofthe16taxidriverswerecomparedtothoseof50non-taxidriverstoseeiftherewereanydifferencesinstructure.

(ii)Pixelcountingcomparedthevolumeofanterior,bodyandposteriorcross-sectionsofthetaxidrivers’hippocampiwiththoseofapreviouslyage,genderandhandedness-matchedsampleof16controlstakenfromthe50usedintheVBManalysis.TheimageswereanalysedbyonepersonexperiencedinthetechniqueandblindedtowhetherthescanwasofataxidriveroracontrolandtheVBMfindings.Thisprocedureallowedthetotalhippocampalvolumetobecalculated.

6. Key Findings

• VBManalysisshowednosignificantdifferencesbetweenthebrainsofthetwogroupsexcept:(i)Taxidrivershadsignificantlyincreasedgreymattervolumeintherightandleftposteriorhippocampicomparedtocontrols.(ii)Inthecontrolstherewasarelativelygreatergreymattervolumeintherightandleftanteriorhippocampicomparedtotaxidrivers.

• Pixelcountingshowedthatalthoughtherewasnosignificantdifferenceinoverallvolumeofthehippocampibetweenthetwogroups:(i)Taxidrivershadasignificantlygreaterposteriorhippocampalvolumethancontrols.(ii)Controlshadasignificantlygreateranteriorrighthippocampalvolumethanthetaxidriversandasignificantlygreaterhippocampalbodyvolumeontherightthantheleft.

Regions of the brain with the largest volume

• Correlationsshowedasignificantpositivecorrelationbetweenthelengthoftimeasataxidriverandtherightposteriorhippocampalvolume,butanegativecorrelationfortheanteriorhippocampalvolume.

Left hippocampus Right hippocampus

Anterior CONTROLS

Body CONTROLS

Posterior TAXIDRIVERS TAXIDRIVERS

• ThereareregionallyspecificstructuraldifferencesbetweenthehippocampioflicensedLondontaxidriverscomparedtothosewhodonotdriveLondontaxis.

• TheprofessionaldependenceonnavigationalskillsinlicensedLondontaxidriversisassociatedwitharelativeredistributionofgreymatterinthehippocampus.

• Itcanbesuggestedthatthechangesinthearrangementofhippocampalgreymatterareacquiredi.e.duetonurture.

• Findingsalsoindicatethepossibilityoflocalplasticityinthestructureofanormalhumanbrainwhichallowsittoadaptinresponsetoprolongedenvironmentalstimuli.

• Intelligencecanbeseenasessentiallyasystemoflivingandactingoperationsi.e.astateofbalanceorequilibriumachievedbythepersonwhenheisabletodealadequatelywiththedatabeforehim.Butitisnotastaticstate,itisdynamicinthatitcontinuallyadaptsitselftonewenvironmentalstimuli(Piaget,J1960PsychologyofIntelligence,Patterson,NJ:Littlefield,Adams.).

• Biologicaldefinitionsseeintelligenceasrelatedtoadaptationtotheenvironment.

• Intelligenceisaninnate,generalcognitiveability(Burt,C.L.(1955).“TheEvidencefortheConceptofIntelligence,”BritishJournalofEducationalPsychology,25,158–177).

• Intelligenceistheabilitytodealwithcognitivecomplexity(Gottfredson,LindaS1998Thegeneralintelligencefactor.ScientificAmerican,Incorporated).

• Theoriesofintelligenceinclude:

- Psychometric(factor-analysis)theoriese.g.Spearman’stwo-factortheory(1904),Burt(1949)andVernon’s(1950)hierarchicalmodel,Thurstone’sprimarymentalabilities.

- Fluidandcrystallisedintelligencee.g.Cattell,1963;Horn&Cattell,1967,1982.

- Information-processingapproache.g.Sternberg,1979;Fishbein,1984.

- Gardner’s(1983,1998)theoryofmultipleintelligence.

• Tryingtodefineintelligencehasprovedproblematicsoresearchershavetendedtofocusinsteadontestingintelligence,whateverintelligencemaybe!

• Akeyissuerelatedtointelligenceistheoneofnatureandnurture.Isintelligenceinnate(nature)orlearned(nurture)?Ifitislearnedwearen’ttestinganunchangingthingbutsomethingthatisaproductofaperson’sexperience.Inwhichcaseoneshouldbeabletoenhanceaperson’sexperienceinsuchawaythattheirintelligenceincreases.Ifintelligenceislearnedthentheonlypointintestingwouldbetoworkoutwhoneedsmoreteaching.Ontheotherhand,ifintelligenceisinnateandunchangingthenthepointoftestingistoclassifypeople.Intelligencetestsdoassumethatintelligenceisaninnateandfixedquantity,because,otherwisewhatisthepointindoingthem?

• Theterm‘IQ’istheusualtestscoregiveninanintelligencetest.Itstandsfor‘intelligencequotient’,aquotientbeingtheresultofadivision–mentalage(MA,one’sscoreonthetest)dividedbyone’schronologicalage(CA).Thisisdonebecauseonewouldexpecta5-year-oldtodolesswellthana10-year-old;thereforethescoresshouldbeadjustedfortheirage.Thequotientisthenmultipliedby100togetridofdecimals:

IQ = MA x 100CA

GOULD, S. J. (1982) A nation of morons. New Scientist, Volume 6, pages 349-352.

Psychology of Individual Differences Measuringdifferences

• In1904,BinetandSimonwerecommissionedbytheFrenchgovernmenttodeviseatestwhichwouldidentifythosechildrenwhowouldn’tbenefitfromordinaryschoolingbecauseoftheirinferiorintelligence.TheresultwastheSimon-Binettest(1905),generallyacceptedasthefirstintelligencetest.

• In1910,TermanatStanfordUniversitybeganadaptingtheSimon-BinettestforuseintheUSA.ThetestbecameknownastheStanford-Binettest.Ithasbeenrevisedandmodifiednumeroustimessince.

• Wechslerdevelopedthemostwidelyusedtestofadultintelligence,theWechslerAdultIntelligenceScale(WAIS)in1944.Thishasalsobeenrevisednumeroustimessinceitwasfirstused.

• TheStanford-BinetandWechslertestsareindividualtests,giventoonepersonatatime;whereasgrouptestsareadministeredtoseveralpeopleatonce.AmajorimpetustothedevelopmentofgrouptestingwasAmerica’sinvolvementinWW1.Aquickandeasymethodofselectingoveronemillionrecruitswasneeded,andtheresultwastheArmyAlphaandBetatests.

• YerkeswasapsychologistatHarvardUniversity.Atthistime(early1900s)psychologywasperceivedasa‘soft’science,soYerkeswantedtoimproveitsstatusbydemonstratingthatitcouldbeasobjectiveandquantifiableastheotherscientificdisciplines.Yerkesalsobelievedthatintelligencewasinheritedandthereforecouldnotbechanged(duetonature).Hesawanopportunitytogivepsychologythestatusitdeservedbyincorporatinghisideasofinheritedintelligenceandthedevelopmentofmentaltesting,whichatthetimewasinitsearlieststages.Hebelievedthatifhecouldshowthatintelligencetestswerereliableandvalid,thenthisquantifiablemeasurewouldprovehispoint.WiththeoutbreakofWW1,thenowColonelYerkes,developedtheideathatitmightbepossibletouserecruitsfortheAmericanarmyasasourceofsufficientdatatoshowthatintelligencetestingwasscientific.Previouseffortstodothishadbeeninsufficientlyco-ordinatedorweresimplyinadequate.ColonelYerkesmanagedtopersuadetheAmericangovernmenttogoalongwithhisidea.

• ThisCoreStudyaimedtoexaminetheearlyhistoryofintelligencetestingasconductedbyYerkesonarmyrecruitsintheUSAduringWW1.Gouldaimedtoidentifythefollowingissuesinpsychology:

- Theproblematicnatureofpsychometrictestingingeneralandthemeasurementofintelligenceinparticular.

- Theproblemoftheoreticalbiasinfluencingresearchinpsychology,inparticularhowpsychologicaltheoriesontheinheritednatureofintelligenceandtheprejudiceofasocietycandramaticallydistorttheobjectivityofintelligencetesting.

- Theproblemofthepoliticalandethicalimplicationsofresearch,inthiscasetheuseofbiaseddatatodiscriminatebetweenpeopleinsuitabilityforoccupationandevenadmissiontoacountry.

3. Research method

• TheGouldstudyisnotapieceofempiricalresearch.ItisimportanttobeawarethatthearticleisaneditedextractfromGould’s(1981)book,‘TheMismeasureofMan’inwhichhetracesthehistoryofthemeasurementofhumanintelligencefromnineteenthcenturycraniology(themeasurementofskulls)totoday’shighlytechnicalandsophisticatedmethodsofIQtesting.

• ThestudyisthereforeareviewarticlethatlooksatthehistoryofRobertM.Yerkes’intelligencetestingofrecruitsfortheUSarmyinWW1,andhisattempttoestablishpsychologyasascientificdiscipline.

4. Sample

• 1.75millionarmyrecruitsintheUSAduringWW1.TherecruitsincludedWhiteAmericans,‘Negroes’andEuropeanimmigrants.

5. Outline of the procedure/study• FromMaytoJuly1917,Yerkes,togetherwithanumberofcolleagueswhosharedhisviewsonthehereditarynatureofintelligence,wrotethe

armymentaltests.Togethertheydevelopedthreetypesoftest,thefirsttwoofwhichcouldbegiventolargegroupsandtooklessthananhourtocomplete.

THE ARMY ALPHA TEST• Thiswasdesignedforliteraterecruits.Itconsistedofeightparts.Itincludeditemswithwhichwearetotallyfamiliaraspartofintelligence

testing:analogies,fillinginthenextnumberinasequenceetc.ItrequiredagoodbasicunderstandingofEnglishlanguageskillsandliteracy.AlthoughthetestswereconsideredbyYerkestomeasure‘nativeintellectualability’(intelligencethatisnotinfluencedbyeducationand/orculture),theywereinfactextremelybiased.Afterall,howcouldsomeonewhowasunfamiliarwithAmericancultureachieveadecentscore?Thefollowingexamplesgivesomeideaofthetypeofquestionsasked:

• WashingtonistoAdamsasfirstisto…….

• Criscoisa:patientmedicine,disinfectant,toothpaste,foodproduct?

• Thenumberofkaffir’slegsis2,4,6,8?

• ChristyMatthewsonisfamousasa:writer,artist,baseballplayer,comedian?

5. Outline of the procedure/studyTHE ARMY BETA TEST• ThiswasatestdesignedforpeoplewhowereilliterateorfailedtheArmyAlphaTest.Ithadsevenpartsandconsistedofpicturecompletion

taskse.g.

• Thepictureswereagainculturallyspecificandwouldhavebeenextremelydifficulttocompleteifparticipantshadnoknowledgeofsomeoftheitems.Therewerealsomazetests,countingthenumberofcubes,findingthenextinaseriesofsymbolsandtranslatingnumeralsintosymbolsusingacodetoworkfrom.

• Theinstructionswerewritten(inEnglish),inthreeofthesevenpartstheanswershadtobegiveninwriting,yetthiswasatestforilliterateswhomayneverhaveheldapencilbeforehand!

Item 18 A B C

5. Outline of the procedure/studyTHE INDIVIDUAL SPOKEN EXAMINATION:Ifrecruitsfailedontheothertwotests,theyweresupposedtobegivenanindividualspokenexamination,thishoweverrarelyhappened.

• EveryindividualwasgivenaGradefromAtoE,withplusandminussignse.g.C-indicatedalowaverageintelligence,suitableforthepositionofordinaryprivateinthearmy;Dindicatedapersonrarelysuitedfortasksrequiringspecialskill,forethought,resourcefulnessorsustainedalertness.

• Administrationofthetestscausednumerousproblems:

• RecruitswhowereilliterateshouldimmediatelyhavebeenassignedtotheBetaTest,orgivenitiftheyfailedtheAlphatest,butthisonlyhappenedinsomecamps.ThereforeilliterateorimmigrantrecruitsoftensattheAlphaTestandcameoutscoringnexttonothing.

• InfactthelevelsofliteracyamongstAmericans,especiallyblackAmericans,weremuchlowerthanYerkesanticipatedandthisconfoundedtheproblemsfurther.

• QueuesfortheBetaTestbegantobuildupandthisledtoanartificialloweringofstandardsbytheadministratorsinordertoreallocatemorementotheAlphaTest.Insomecamps,theminimumlevelofschoolingwassufficienttowarrantsittingtheAlphatest,whereasinotherstherecruitshadtoachieveacertaingrade.

• Besidestheseinconsistenciesinadministration,furtherproblemsarosewithmen,especiallyblackmen,whofailedtheAlphaTestnotbeingallowedtore-sittheBetaTest.

• OnlyonefifthofthosewhofailedtheBetaTestwereallowedtotaketheindividualexaminations.

6. Key findings

• ThedatawasanalysedbyE.G.Boring,Yerkes’lieutenant,whomanipulatedtheresults.Selecteddatawasconvertedtoacommonstandardtolookforracialandnationalaverages.

• Thefollowing‘FACTS’emerged:

• Theaveragementalageofwhite,American,adult,malesstoodjustabovetheedgeofmoronityatashockingandmeagre13.(Termanhadpreviouslysetthestandardat16.)Thisindicatedthatthecountrywas‘anationofmorons’andassuchwastakenbytheeugeniciststoshowthatthepoor,Negroesandfeeble-mindedhadbeeninterbreedingandloweringtheoverallintelligenceofthepopulation.

• ThedataalsoshowedthatEuropeanimmigrantscouldbegradedbytheircountryoforiginwiththedarkerpeopleofSouthernEuropeandtheSlavsofEasternEuropebeinglessintelligentthanthefairpeopleofWesternandNorthernEurope.

• Theblackmanhadanaveragementalageof10.41.Howeverthelightertheskincolour.Thehigherthescore.

ANALYSIS AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS• Thetestshadalargeimpactonofficerscreening.Bytheendofthewar,twothirdsofthemenwhohadpromotedwerethosewhohadtaken

thetestsandachievedgoodtestresults.AccordingtoYerkestherewasalsoa‘steadystreamofrequestsfromcommercialconcerns,educationalestablishmentsandindividualsfortheuseofarmymethodsofpsychologicalexaminingorfortheadaptationofsuchmethodsforspecialneeds’.

• The‘fact’thattheaveragementalageofAmericanwas13wasconcerningbutthemostimportantimplicationthesestestshadwasthedifferencesinracialandnationalgroups.Bearinginmindthatthesetestswerenowacceptedmeasuresofinnateintelligence,herewasevidencethattherereallywasadifferencebetweenracialandnationalgroupsintheirlevelsofintelligence.Interestinglyenough,NordicpeoplefromnorthernEuropehadbeenshowntobethemostintelligent.

• This‘evidence’wasusedbyCarlBrigham,AssistantprofessoratPrincetonUniversity,inabookwhichwasidealpropagandaforanyracists.Thebookdispelledanypossibleconcernsthatmightberaisedabouttheaccuracyofthefindingsbysomeverystrangereasoning.AlthoughsomeJewswereextremelyaccomplishedscholars,statesmenandperformingartists,therewereonlynoticeablebecausetheywereunusualexceptionstotherule.Themajorityhadbeenassessedashavinglowlevelsofintelligence.

• Althoughthetestsweresupposedtobeaccurateirrespectiveofcountryoforiginorfirstlanguage,evenYerkesadmittedtheresultsshowedthattherewasaproblemforpeoplewhoweren’tfamiliarwithEnglish.ThemostrecentimmigrantshadbeenLatinsandSlavswhospokelittleEnglish,so,naturally,theyhadscoredthelowestscoresofall.

. . . continues

• IQtestsareculturallyandhistoricallybiased.

• IQtestsdonotmeasureinnateintelligence.

• IQtestingisoftenunreliable.

• IQtestsmaynotproducevalidresults.

• Inappropriate,poorlyadministeredIQtestscanleadtotragicconsequences.

• Nationscanbegradedbytheirintelligence.

• Americaisanationofmorons!

6. Key findings

. . . continued • THE IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACTwaspassedin1924bytheUSCongressandwasshapedbyYerkes’findings.Peoplefromsouthernand

easternEuropeandfromtheAlpineandMediterraneannationswhohadscoredverypoorlyonthearmytestswerenolongerwelcomeintheUSA.Thewaythiswascontrolledwasbylookingatdatafromacensusofimmigrants,whichhadbeenconductedin1890whenimmigrationfromsouthernandeasternEuropewasverylow.ItwasdecidedthatthequotaofimmigrantsallowedintoAmericawouldbe2%ofeachrecordednationtakenfromthe1890figures.Thisobviouslymeantthatthenumbersof‘theunwanted’wouldbeverylow.Gould,inhisbook,makesitclearwhymorerecentdatafromanothercensus(1920)wasnotusedasthebasis–becausetheproportionsofimmigrantsin1920wasverydifferenti.e.therehadbeenmoresouthernandeasternEuropeanimmigrantssoworkingonthe2%immigrationquotawouldhavemeantmorewouldhavebeenallowedintoAmerica!

• TheseimmigrationrestrictionsweretohavehorrendousconsequencesastheimmigrationfromsouthernandeasternEuropewasallbutceased.ThepersecutionoftheJewswhichstartedwellbeforetheactualbeginningoftheSecondWorldWar,meantthatmanyJewstriedtoescapefromtheirhomeland,buttherewas‘noadmittance’toAmerica.Calculationssuggestthatasmanyas6millionpeoplefromsouthern,centralandeasternEuropeweredeniedentryintoAmericabetween1924andthestartofWW2,in1939.ThefateofmanyofthemasaresultoftheNaziregimeiswellknown.

• Languagecommunicatesdirectlyanindividual’sthoughtstoanotherperson.

• Therelationshipbetweenlanguageandthoughthasbeenthesubjectofmuchdebateamongphilosophersandpsychologists.Viewsfallintofourmaincategories:

(i)Thoughtisdependenton,orcausedby,languagee.g.Watson’s‘peripheralist’approach,theSapir-Whorflinguisticrelativityhypothesis(LRH).

(ii)Languageisdependenton,andreflects,thoughtse.g.Piaget(1959),Pinker(2010),Everett(2009).

(iii)Thoughtandlanguageareinitiallyquiteseparateactivitiese.g.Vygotsky(1962).

(iv)Languageandthoughtsareoneandthesame.

• Wordscanrevealsignificantinsightsaboutpsychologicalfunctioninge.g.Pennebaker,Mehl&Niederhoffer(2003)“Psychologicalaspectsofnaturallanguageuse:Ourwords,ourselves.”Annualreviewofpsychology54.1(2003):547-577.

• Underlyingcognitiveandemotionalprocessescanberevealedthroughsubtlepatternsinwordchoice.

• Quantitativewordcountscanbeusedasatoolintheidentificationandexaminationofabnormalpsychologicalprocesses(Oxman,Rosenberg,Schnurr&Tucker,1988).Psychopathymaythereforebereflectedinidiosyncraticlinguisticstyles.

• Psychopathshavespecificcombinationsofcognitive,socialandemotionalcharacteristicsthatdifferentiatethemfromthegeneralpopulation(Hare,2003,2006).

• AcomputerisedanalysisbyJunghaenel,Smyth&Santner(2008)oflanguageproducedbypsychiatricpatientsrevealedfewerwordspertainingtooptimism,basiccognitivefunctions,referencestothefuture,andcommunicationwithotherscomparedtoasampleofcommunityvolunteers.

• Therehasbeenlittleexaminationofthespeechassociatedwithpsychopaths(Hare,1993)whocompriseabout1%ofthegeneralpopulation(Hare,2006).

• Hare(2003)foundthatstudiesofpsychophysiology,neurology,andbehaviourhaveshownpsychopathstoexhibitawhollyselfishorientationandprofoundemotionaldeficit.

• ResearcherssuchasRaineetal(2003,2004)andOliveria-Souzaetal(2008),havefoundthatthepsychopath’sdiminishedcapabilityforneuralsensibilityappearstohavebiologicalunderpinnings.

HANCOCK, J., WOODWORTH, M.T. & PORTER, S. (2011) Hungry like the wolf: a word-pattern analysis of the language of psychopaths. Legal and Criminal Psychology, Volume 18, No. 1, pages 102-114

• Patrick(2006)foundpsychopathsexhibitnoapparentdeficitsinintellect.• Previousstudieshaverevealedthatpsychopaths’languageappearstobelesscohesivethannon-psychopaths:

- Cleckley(1976)observed,throughcasestudies,thatthediscourseofpsychopathswasmorelikelytoincludeatangentialandincoherentqualitythannon-psychopaths.

- Williamson(1993)analysedthenarrativesofpsychopathsandnon-psychopathsandfoundthattheformerusedmorecontradictory,logicallyinconsistentstatements.

- Similarly,Brinkley,Newman,Harper&Johnson(1999)foundthatnarrativesofpsychopathscontainedfewercohesivetiesandmoreintegrateddetailsthannon-psychopaths.

• Thisstudywasthefirsttouniquelyexaminethespecificqualitiesofpsychopathiclanguageusingsophisticatedstatisticaltextanalysistools.Theresearchersexaminedthelanguagecharacteristicsofpsychopaths(indescribingtheirviolentcrimes)onthreemajorcharacteristics:(i)Theirinstrumentalnature.(ii)Theiruniquematerialandsocioemotionalneeds.(iii)Theiremotionaldeficit.(TheexpectationsofHancocketalinrelationtothesethreecharacteristicscanbefoundintheoriginalstudy.)

• Theiraimwastoexaminewhetherthelanguageofpsychopathsreflected,aspredicted,aninstrumental/predatoryworldview,uniquesocioemotionalneedsandapovertyofeffect.

3. Research method

• PsychopathywasmeasuredusingPschopathyChecklistRevised(PCL-R;Hare,1991,2003).• Thisstudyusedsemi-structured/open-endedinterviews(aself-reportmethod)whichemployedtheStep-WiseInterviewtechniquetogather

datainrelationtothelanguageofpsychopathsandnon-psychopathswhohadcommittedmurder.• ThenarrativesweresubsequentlytranscribedandanalysedthroughcontentanalysisusingtheWmatrixandtheDAL.

4. Sample

• 52malemurders(14psychopathic,38non-psychopathic)incarceratedinCanadiancorrectionalfacilitieswhoadmittedtheircrimeandvolunteeredforthestudy.

• 8convictions(16%)wereforfirst-degreemurder,32(64%)ofconvictionswereforsecond-degreemurderand10(20%)ofconvictionswereformanslaughter.

• Therewerenodifferencesbetweenthetypeofcrime(manslaughter,second-degreemurder,first-degreemurder)andpsychopathyversuscontrol(non-psychopathy).

• Meanageatthetimeoftheircurrenthomicidewas28.9years(SD=9.2,rangeof14-50years).• Thetwogroupsdidnotdifferonage(psychopaths:M=39.71years,SD=7.53;controls:M=39.91years,SD=9.76,t(50)=.06,ns.• Thetwogroupsdidnotdifferintheamountoftimesincethehomicidewascommitted(psychopaths:M=11.87years,SD=7.78;controls:M=

9.82,SD=6.78,t(50)=.93,ns.

5. Outline of the procedure

• Firstly,potentialparticipantswereaskedwhethertheywouldbeinterestedintakingpartinaresearchstudy.• Interestedindividualsunderwentapsychopathyassessment:

- PsychopathywasmeasuredusingthePsychologyChecklist-Revised(PCL-R).Psychopathy,asmeasuredbythePCL-Rischaracterisedby20criteriascoredfrom0–2foramaximumscoreof40.Theclinicaldiagnosticcut-offforpsychopathyisscoresof30orabove.(Furtherdetailsofthiscanbefoundintheoriginalstudy.)

- ThePCL–RassessmentswereeitherconductedbyextensivelytrainedprisonpsychologistsoraresearcherwhowaswelltrainedinthecodingofthePCL–R(aninter-raterreliabilitycheckshowedasignificantpositivecorrelationwithp≤.001).

- Usingacut-offscoreof25(whichhadpreviouslybeenjustifiedforresearchpurposese.g.Jackson,Rogers,Neumann&Lambert,2002),14offenderswereclassifiedaspsychopathicand38asnon-psychopathic.

• Participantsweretheninterviewed.Atthebeginningoftheinterview,thepurposeofthestudy(toexaminethemannerinwhichhomicideoffendersrecalltheirhomicideoffence)andtheprocedurewereverballyexplained.

• Whilebeingaudio-taped,participantswereaskedtodescribetheirhomicideoffencesinasmuchdetailaspossible.Inthisopen-endedinterviewingprocedure,eachparticipantwasencouragedtoprovideasmuchinformationaboutthecrimeaspossiblefromthebeginningtotheend,omittingnodetails.ParticipantswerepromptedtoprovidetodothisusingastandardisedprocedureknownastheStep-WiseInterview(seeYuille,Marxson&Cooper,1999).

• Theinterviewersweretwoseniorpsychologygraduatestudentsandoneresearchassistant,allofwhomwereblindtothepsychopathyscoresoftheoffenders.

• Interviewslastedabout25minutes.• Thenarrativesweresubsequentlytranscribed,asclosetoverbatimaspossibleandthencheckedtoensurespellingerrorswerecorrected,all

interviewercommentsweredeletedandpropernounsandabbreviationswerespelledout.• Twotextanalysistoolswerethenusedtoanalysethetranscripts:

(i)ThecorpusanalysisprogrammeWmatrix(Rayson,2003,2008),whichwasusedtocomparepartsofspeechandtoanalysesemanticconceptscontainedinthepsychopathandcontrolcorpora.

(ii)TheDictionaryofAffectinLanguage(DAL)softwareprogramme(Whissell&Dewson,1986)wasusedtoexaminetheaffectivetoneofthewords.

(Detailsofthesetextanalysistoolscanbefoundintheoriginalstudy.)

6. Key findings

• Theinterviewsofthepsychopathsandcontrolsproducedatotalof127,376words.The14psychopathnarrativescontained29,562wordsandaveraged2,201.5(SE=408.1)perparticipant.The38controlnarrativescontained97,814wordsandaveraged2,554.3(SE=367.0)perparticipants.Therewasnosignificantdifferenceintheaveragenumberofwordsproducedbypsychopathsandcontrols,t(50)=.59,ns.

Instrumental language analysis- Psychopathsproducedmoresubordinatingconjunctionsthancontrolse.g.because,since,as,sothat.

Hierarchy of needs analysis- Psychopathsusedapproximatelytwiceasmanywordsrelatedtobasicphysiologicalneeds,includingeating,drinkingandmonetary

resourceswhendescribingtheirmurdersthancontrols.- Controlsusedsignificantlymorelanguagerelatedtosocialneeds,includingfamily,religionandspiritualitythanpsychopaths.

Semantic content of homicide descriptions, related to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs across psychopathic and non-psychopathic offenders

Psychopaths Controls

Frequency % Frequency %

Physiological & safety needs

Food 89 .30 117 .12

Drink 196 .66 370 .38

Clothing 120 .41 266 .27

Money 78 26 160 .16

Social needs

Family 84 .28 555 .57

Religion 36 .12 201 .21

6. Key findings

Emotional expression of language - Thedegreetowhichthepsychopathshadphysiologicallydistancedthemselves/weresimplydetachedfromtheirhomicidewasexamined

throughtheuseofthepastandpresentformofverbsandtherateofarticles:

Temporal representations of psychopathic and non-psychopathic offenders.

- Psychopathsusedmorepasttenseverbsthancontrolse.g.stabbed.- Psychopathsusedfewerpresenttenseverbsthancontrolse.g.stab.- Psychopathsproducedahigherrateofarticlesthancontrols,revealingthattheirlanguageinvolvedmoreconcretenouns.

• Psychopathiclanguagewassignificantlylessfluentthancontrols.• Initially,nosignificantdifferencesintheemotionalcontentoflanguagebetweenthetwogroupsintermsofpleasantness,intensityorimagery

werefound.Howeverfurtheranalysisshowedpsychopathytobeassociatedwithlesspositivelyvalencedandlessemotionallyintenselanguage.

Psychopaths Controls

Frequency % Frequency %

Temporal construal

Lexicalverbs-pasttensee.g.gave 1,798 6.08 5,466 5.59

Lexicalverbs–presenttensee.g.work 727 2.46 2,853 2.92

Articlese.g.a,the 1,281 4.33 3,877 3.96

• Psychopathsaremorelikelythannon-psychopathstodescribecauseandeffectrelationshipswhendescribingtheirmurder.

• Psychopathsaremorelikelytoviewtheircrimeasalogicaloutcomeofaplanthannon-psychopaths.

• Psychopathsfocusmoreonphysiologicalneedsthanhigherlevelsocialneedsthannon-psychopaths.

• PsychopathsarefocusedonalowerlevelofnecessitiesinMaslow’shierarchyofneedsthannon-psychopaths.

• Psychopathswilllinguisticallyframetheirhomicideasmoreinthepastandinmorepsychologicallydistanttermsthannon-psychopaths.

• Psychopathsgivelessemotionallyintensedescriptionsoftheircrimesanduselessemotionallypleasantlanguagethannon-psychopaths.

• Psychopathiclanguageissubstantiallymoredisfluentthanthatofnon-psychopaths.

• Psychopathsdescribepowerfulemotionalevents(theircrimes)inanidiosyncraticmanner.

• Psychopathsoperateonaprimitivebutrationallevel.

OCR Resources: the small printOCR’sresourcesareprovidedtosupporttheteachingofOCRspecifications,butinnowayconstituteanendorsedteachingmethodthatisrequiredbytheBoardandthedecisiontousethemlieswiththeindividualteacher.Whilsteveryeffortismadetoensuretheaccuracyofthecontent,OCRcannotbeheldresponsibleforanyerrorsoromissionswithintheseresources.Weupdateourresourcesonaregularbasis,sopleasechecktheOCRwebsitetoensureyouhavethemostuptodateversion.

©OCR2014-Thisresourcemaybefreelycopiedanddistributed,aslongastheOCRlogoandthismessageremainintactandOCRisacknowledgedastheoriginatorofthiswork.

We’dliketoknowyourviewontheresourcesweproduce.Byclickingonthe‘Like’or‘Dislike’buttonyoucanhelpustoensurethatourresourcesworkforyou.Whentheemailtemplatepopsuppleaseaddadditionalcommentsifyouwishandthenjustclick‘Send’.Thankyou.

Forstafftrainingpurposesandaspartofourqualityassuranceprogrammeyourcallmayberecordedormonitored.

©OCR2014OxfordCambridgeandRSAExaminationsisaCompanyLimitedbyGuarantee.RegisteredinEngland.Registeredoffice1HillsRoad,CambridgeCB12EU.Registeredcompanynumber3484466.OCRisanexemptcharity.

OCRcustomercontactcentreGeneralqualificationsTelephone01223553998Facsimile01223552627Emailgeneral.qualifications@ocr.org.uk

ocr gce psychology - an anthology of core studies for the

Documents

a2 level gce teacher support: performance tables - ocr ·...

ocr gce physics b g493 coursework (experiment)

ocr gce chemistry a (h032/h432) ocr gce chemistry...

resources for ocr latin anthology for gcse · ocr latin...

gce physics a - ocr · contents advanced gce physics a...

ocr gce physics b g496 coursework (research report)

applied as/a level gce - ocr.org.uk · applied as/a level...

ocr 7805 sam gce unit f453

switching to ocr chemistry a gce from aqa

gce religious studies - ocr · oxford cambridge and rsa...

ocr 7986 sam gce unit g495

ocr 7977 sam gce unit g485

ocr 55545 admin gce jan 2012 exam timetable

ocr gce physics b g496 coursework (experiment)

ocr 7804 sam gce unit f452

ocr june 2017 provisional examination timetable - advanced...

ocr june 2020 final examination timetable - advanced gce

ocr gce maths guide

ocr gce biology january 2008

gce applied science - ocr · gce . applied science ....