Sleep : 2 Psychological Approaches

Sleep is by definition, “A condition of body and mind which typically recurs for several hours every night, in which the nervous system is inactive, the eyes closed, the postural muscles relaxed, and consciousness practically suspended.”

The biological approach to sleep links sleeping to brain development, with brain plasticity being one of the more recent explanations as to why we need to sleep. The brain plasticity theory suggests that sleep is parallel to changes in structure and organisation of the brain. Infants and young children can spend around 13 to 14 hours sleeping each day and about half of that time is spent in REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, the stage in which most dreams occur. Without REM sleep, permanent plastic changes to the visual cortex do not occur and the ERK enzyme does not activate (ERK enzyme works by turning neuronal genes into proteins, which solidify the brain changes). Oswald’s (1980) theory of brain restoration and growth is supported by the fact that REM sleep drops with age (infant’s brains need more REM than adults) and increases with injury. An alternative theory to restoration comes from Empson & Clarke (1970) which states that it is possible that the high level of brain activity during REM sleep helps to consolidate information learned during the day. In addition, melatonin is a hormone which is produced by a small gland in the brain called the pineal gland. During the shorter days of the winter months, your body may produce melatonin either earlier or later in the day than usual as natural melatonin production is affected by light availability. Seasonal affect disorder (SAD) or winter depression can be caused as a result of this change in light availability

With sleeping comes dreaming. Freud famously theorised that dreams were the “royal road to the unconscious” and gave psychoanalysis as one reason to why we have dreams. Freud had little understanding of the REM and NREM sleep cycles but modern day dream research has pointed us to a number of other theories however there is yet no definitive answer as to why we have dreams. Theories include dreaming because of random impulses (Hobson & McCarley, 1977) , dreaming to organise the brain, dreaming to help to solve problems (Fiss, 1993 suggested that dreaming registers extremely subtle hints which go unnoticed when we are fully conscious during the day, hence where the phrase, “sleeping on it”, comes from) and dreaming to cope with trauma. Almost all people have several dreams each night but only 5% of those dreams are recalled through memory once we wake up. As complex as this all sounds, as there is currently no definitive answer, it is still possible that dreams are just a product of randomly firing neurons.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Experiments

An experimenter must ensure that their experimental design is fair in order to be sure that the results and conclusions collected and formed are valid.

Strengths of an experiment:

1.  Ensuring that all variables that might affect the results (dependent, independent or confounding) are controlled.
2. Using a sample size which is representative
3. Ensuring that the method is written clearly so that if the experiment was to be repeated by someone else, there would be no confusion in terms of knowing what to do.

Depending on the circumstances of the experiment, using a control group is a strength as it allows the experimenters to compare the experimental group to the control group in order to determine if the treatment had an effect. By serving as a comparison group, researchers are able to isolate the independent variable and look at the impact it had.

Weaknesses of an experiment:

1. Experiments are sometimes less detailed and/or more unrealistic in comparison to case studies
2. Behaviour in the laboratory is very narrow in its range. By controlling the situation so precisely, behaviour may be very limited thus affecting results
3. Demand characteristics are all of the indications which convey to the participant the purpose of the experiment. Experimenters and Participants are active human beings who may by nature have some sort of conclusion formed about what is going to happen or what is supposed to happen.

http://www.holah.karoo.net/evaluationofexperiment.htm

Sleep and Dreams

We know it’s good for us and we are constantly told to get more of it, but what is so good about sleep? It turns out, quite a lot actually – sleep is beneficial to our well being, whether that be psychological, physical, medical etc and is by definition, “A condition of body and mind which typically recurs for several hours every night, in which the nervous system is inactive, the eyes closed, the postural muscles relaxed, and consciousness practically suspended.”

-dreamception-

Insufficient sleep is deemed as a public health problem by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in the US. In order to bring it closer to home, a study conducted by the UK Sleep Council found that one third of Britons get just five to six hours of sleep a night instead of the recommended seven to eight hours. Feeling grumpy and lacking focus are common but another consequence is having an increased likelihood of forming false memories. Research has been published in Psychological Science on sleep deprivation and false memories (Frenda, 2014) and the experiment showed that sleep-deprived people who viewed photographs of a crime being committed and then read false information about the photos were more likely to report remembering the false details in the photos than were those who got a full night’s sleep. Sleep also contributes to brain development, with brain plasticity being one of the more recent explanations as to why we need to sleep. The brain plasticity theory suggests that sleep is parallel to changes in structure and organisation of the brain. Infants and young children can spend around 13 to 14 hours sleeping each day and about half of that time is spent in REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, the stage in which most dreams occur. Without REM sleep, permanent plastic changes to the visual cortex do not occur and the ERK enzyme does not activate (ERK enzyme works by turning neuronal genes into proteins, which solidify the brain changes) .

-every single day-

Sigmund Freud famously theorised that dreams were the “royal road to the unconscious” and gave psychoanalysis as one reason to why we have dreams. Freud had little understanding of the REM and NREM sleep cycles but modern day dream research has pointed us to a number of other theories however there is yet no definitive answer as to why we have dreams. Theories include dreaming because of random impulses (Hobson & McCarley, 1977) , dreaming to organise the brain, dreaming to help to solve problems (Fiss, 1993 suggested that dreaming registers extremely subtle hints which go unnoticed when we are fully conscious during the day, hence where the phrase, “sleeping on it”, comes from) and dreaming to cope with trauma. Almost all people have several dreams each night but only 5% of those dreams are recalled through memory once we wake up. As complex as this all sounds, as there is currently no definitive answer, it is still possible that dreams are just a product of randomly firing neurons.

-every time…every time-

Sleep is essential and we all know it but with our busy lives and need to contribute to society in some way, it is easy to neglect it. As a sleep deprived teenager who is confused about the clocks changing and is currently racing against time (which could just be a man-made construct and not real) to finish piles of work, I am more than looking forward to falling asleep and seeing what weird dreams I have but to be honest, I don’t think I’ll remember any of them in the morning anyway.

-Happens in every fandom-

Studying Smarter

The key to effective studying isn’t cramming or studying longer (although in some cases, this works well), but studying smarter. There are many ways to make studying more effective but in the end, how effective or successful a method is could differ from person to person. With that being said, I feel that it is important to establish which habits and methods work for you and which don’t.

3 types of people

A study on the spacing effect (Kornell, 2009) was published in Applied Cognitive Psychology which goes on to explain how spacing out study sessions over a longer period of time improves long-term memory. If you have 12 hours to spend on a subject, it’s better to study it for three hours each week for four weeks than to cram all 12 hours into week four. Although psychologists are still unsure as to why this method is effective, one possible reason is that over time, people forget what they have learned in their initial study session and when they come back to the material later, the new study session jogs their memory and they recall what they learned the first time around. This forgetting and retrieving method helps cement the new knowledge in place. In Kornell’s experiment, he asked college students to study a “stack” of 20 digital vocabulary flashcards. The students all studied each word four times but half of the students studied the words in one big stack — they went through all 20 words, then started over. The other half of the students studied the words in four smaller stacks of five cards each. The students who used the one big stack had a longer spacing time between each of the four times they saw a word. The next day, the students were tested again and those in the “big stack” group remembered more of the words (49%) than the students in the “four small stacks” group (36%).

Another thing to consider is the location. Are classrooms actually good environments to study in? Do you prefer to switch locations frequently?  Are you able to study effectively in your room where you feel comfortable having everything there or do you get distracted easily by mess in your room and prefer to study in an environment which is not too familiar? Do you prefer to switch locations frequently?

You can’t buy happiness but you can buy books and that’s kind of the same thing

Speaking of distractions, are you somebody who is more comfortable studying in their own peaceful solitude or with others as you find it motivating? This could be down to where you would place yourself on an extroversion spectrum. Furthermore, do you like to study with music playing or, if you’re like me, do you find yourself getting distracted from your work as you start to tap your fingers to the beat and analyse the structure, cadences, key, texture, lyrics etc?

*mentally insert constant tapping noise*

Daytime or night time – when do you study? Both have their advantages and disadvantages. For example, silence and tranquillity as well as emptier libraries and higher levels of creativity support the night owls whereas having more energy and the fact that society is structured around being active during the day and sleeping at night supports somebody who is more of an early bird.

Lastly, how you approach studying matters is important. Being in the right mindset is helpful when trying to study smarter but sometimes, you can’t force yourself to study if your mind is set on something entirely different. Once you are ready to study, think positively and avoid catastrophic and absolute thinking (‘broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions’, Fredrickson, 1998).

Pretty accurate

In the end, it takes a lot of trial and error to know which study methods work for you. Having tried for 13 years, I have not yet found an infallible method but look on the bright side (positive thoughts, see?), this will be a work in progress for many years to come…

Observation Methods

Observation is a method of carrying out research in psychology and can fall under three distinctions – controlled observations, naturalistic observations and participant observations. Observations are generally cheap and require few resources and materials but can be time consuming depending on what you are observing. Observations can also be considered as overt (participants are aware of the fact that they are being studied and have granted their permission) or covert (researcher keeps their real identity hidden from the participants, acting as a participant too).

‘observe’

‘Eye am simply observing…’

Controlled observations are usually overt as the researcher explains the research aim to the group, so the participants know they are being observed. Usually carried out in psychology laboratories, the researcher is in charge of factors such as where the observation takes place, when, with whom and in what circumstances. Participants are randomly allocated to each independent variable group and the researcher usually avoids any direct contact with the participants but can still observe through a two way window (eg. ‘Bobo Doll Experiment’, Bandura, 1962. His findings also support his Social Learning Theory (1977)). The advantages of controlled observations are that they make testing for reliability straightforward as they can be replicated by other researchers easily by using the same observation schedule. Also, the quantitative data retrieved is easier and faster to analyse and less time consuming than analysing data retrieved from naturalistic observations. They are also relatively quick to conduct so a large number of observations can take place in little time and the large sample can thus be used to represent and generalise a large population. A disadvantage is the lack of validity in controlled observations due to the Hawthorne Effect (participants modify their behaviour in response to their awareness of being observed).

Naturalistic observation involves studying the spontaneous behaviour of participants in natural surroundings. Advantages are that data collected from naturalistic observations can be used to generate new ideas. The data also has greater ecological validity because subjects are in their own natural setting and behaviour can be a lot more genuine. Their behaviourism and reactions to things are perceived as not manipulated, unlike many other types of research methods (such as controlled observations) where the subject is aware that they are being examined. Disadvantages are that other researchers may find it challenging to repeat the study in the exact way as it was conducted before due to variables which cannot be controlled thus making this type of observation less reliable. Furthermore, the observations are conducted on a micro-scale and may be biased in terms of factors such as gender, age etc which means findings lack the ability to be generalised.

Participant observation can be overt or covert and is similar to naturalistic observation but the researcher becomes an active member of the group of participants to gain a clearer insight. Leon Festinger (1956) conducted this type of observation in which he became a member of a religious apocalyptic cult who believed that the end of the world was coming and studied the members’ reactions when the prophecy did not come true. Advantages of this observation are that the researcher is provided with opportunities for viewing or participating in unscheduled events. The quality of data collection and interpretation are also improved and facilitates the development of new research questions or hypotheses. Disadvantages are that it can be challenging to record findings privately or have the time to do so, especially in covert observations where the researcher will have to recall events from memory with the possibility of forgetting details and misquoting. Also, the validity of results may be reduced if the researcher loses objectivity and becomes biased with their own expectations and assumptions.

‘I have become one with the birds’

BBC Prison Study (Reicher & Haslam, 2006) Early Days and Conflict

The BBC Prison Study (known as The Experiment) was a series broadcast on BBC in 2002. Produced by Steve Reicher and Alex Haslam, The Experiment involved 15 men (each selected at random to be either “prisoner” or guard) staying for 8 days in a simulated prison and explored the social and psychological consequences of putting people in groups of unequal power. Moreover it examines when people accept inequality and when they challenge it. Stages of the experiment included early days, conflict, order, rebellion and tyranny.

Early Days

The day prior to the experiment, the guards meet with the psychologists to discuss the layout of the prison as well as the resources at their disposal and are told to create rules to make the prison work.The guards are then taken to the prison via blacked out cars the following day and change into uniform. The prisoners arrive shortly after in blacked out cars and are told to shower, change into their prison uniform, hand over their clothes and valuable possessions and have their heads shaved. No complaints were raised until several minutes after the prisoners had entered their three-man cells as they realised the reality of their inferior status. Further complaints were expressed about the quality of food and cigarettes. The prisoners were then ordered to line up and listen to an announcement from an experimenter regarding a promotion. Opinions are divided in terms of whether or not they want to be promoted. Reicher and Haslam used the promotion as a way of explaining social identity theory (when the disadvantaged think that they can advance to a higher-status position through their individual efforts, they will fail to act as a group, instead working individually within the system rather than work together against the system.) Both prisoners and guards are disunited with some of the participants wanting to distant themselves from their roles in the experiment. Some of the guards are uncomfortable with the amount of power and luxuries they have and who they may become if they let those factors control them. They are especially uncomfortable about the amount and quality of food they get in comparison with the prisoners’ so offer prisoners their leftovers only to be rejected and humiliated. The prisoners then see the guards as a weak unit.

Conflict

According to social identity theory, by stating that after this one promotion there will be no more, a situation will be produced where the participants should begin to identify with their group and to act as a group. After failing to receive the promotion, certain prisoners begin to plot ways of undermining the guards’ authority such as mocking them and drawing a Hitler moustache and a swastika on a photo of one of the guards. The guards seem unaware of the plots being formed by the prisoners behind their backs. One guard in particular acts as if everyone is equal which infuriates the prisoners as it covers up the differences between the two groups and further emphasises the guards’ weak grasp on power. A plan by the prisoners is later put into action, showing the prisoners working as a unit while the guards undermine each other. With the guards’ disunity, the prisoners win.

Unlike the results from the Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1973), Reicher and Haslam’s findings were published in leading academic journals, leading to a number of publications on tyranny, stress and leadership and cast further doubt on Zimbardo’s general conclusions. Zimbardo’s study focussed more on what happens when a powerful authority figure (Zimbardo and his briefing to the guards) imposes tyranny whereas Reicher and Haslam’s study focussed on what happens when you leave people to deal with inequality on their own as well as how they can end up creating tyranny for themselves. They question the notion that people slip mindlessly into role and the idea that the dynamics of evil are in any way banal. Their research also points to the importance of leadership in the emergence of tyranny of the form displayed by Zimbardo when briefing guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment. “Looking at these dynamics, it is true that evil can become normal and indeed normative in groups and hence  can end  up appearing  banal. However, the development of these norms and of their appeal is a long  and  intricate  process.  This  process  —  the normalization  of  evil  — is  far  from  banal.  Our theories of it should no longer be either.” (Reicher & Haslam, 2007)

Obedience

In human nature, obedience is a form of “social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure” and there is a hierarchy of power present. This is different from conformity as conformity occurs through social pressures (the norms of the society). We assume that without such an order, the person would not have acted in this way. People are socialised to obey and from a young age, we’ve often been given commands and rules to follow on a day-to-day basis, learning from people such as parents that disobedience leads to punishment but what is it that makes us obey or disobey?

Factors influencing obedience levels include the presence of an authority figure (be it religious or secular), whether peers obey or rebel, authoritarian parenting and personal responsibility.

Milgram (1963) conducted an experiment which showed shocking levels of obedience to an authority figure although it lacked realism of an everyday situation. The experiments began in 1961, one year after  the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram wanted to know, “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974). He was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person. The results showed that 65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e. teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts. This concluded that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. In the Stanford Prison Experiment by Zimbardo (1973), higher levels of perceived prestige and closer proximity to the authority figure were associated with increased obedience. Deindividuation and lack of expertise in the participants were also associated with higher levels of obedience.

Also, obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up. Children often have to obey their own parents when they are young (for example – doing homework, studying, chores, going to bed at a certain time) and sometimes obedience is associated with reward and rebellion is associated with punishment. However, as children mature, they become more independent and people argue that raising children to be obedient is much less healthy than raising them to be able to think for themselves as they should be taught to question authority, develop the critical thinking skills, personal confidence, and ethical autonomy which will enable them to resist or reject such orders if they don’t agree with the reasons behind them.

Whether peers obey or rebel also influences the level of obedience. Generally, if the majority of a class refuses to quieten down after a teacher’s command, you may feel that because the majority are rebelling, you might as well do so too. From a different angle, if you are the only disruptive person in a class full of students who are quietly working and the teacher threatens to hand out a punishment exercise to the whole class, you may rethink your actions if you are someone who is liberal and empathetic. Additionally, if you notice that 2 of your peers are quiet, you may also decide to stay silent in hopes that you and the 2 other people will be exempt from punishment (minority influence) while the majority face the consequences.

Social Psychology – Conformity NSI vs. ISI

Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in one’s behaviour or belief in order to fit in with the social norm. A person’s opinion could be changed by influences such as peer pressure and the physical presence of others, or as Crutchfield in 1955 suggested, “yielding to group pressures.”

Kelman (1958) distinguished between three different types of conformity: Compliance, identification and internalisation. Compliance involves an individual publicly changing their behaviour or belief to fit in with a group despite the fact that they disagree privately. This is evident in Asch’s ‘length of lines’ study in 1955. Identification involves the individual to publicly change their behaviour or belief to fit in with the group and also agreeing with them privately although if the group one day ceased to exist then agreement would only be temporary. An example would be Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment in 1973. Internalisation is where a group causes a permanent change in behaviour and beliefs and there is no change in private opinion.

Motivation to conform can stem from normative social influence (NSI). NSI is to do with having the desire to fit in with a group of people and a person often conforms due to the fear of being rejected by the group if they do or agree with something which the rest of the group are against/disagree with. NSI usually involves compliance. For instance, say there are 5 people in your group of friends including yourself. 4 of them are talking about their love for pop/punk rock music. You may actually hate the styles they love and instead prefer jazz/blues music but for the sake of fitting in and with the fear of rejection, you nod your head and agree with how amazing the drummer looks with those new neon blue highlights in his edgy fringe but you actually don’t care.

Asch’s ‘length of lines’ study in 1955 showed NSI.

Informational social influence (ISI) is another type of motivation which is to do with the desire to be correct when there is no obvious right answer. When a person lacks knowledge about something or is in an ambiguous situation, they look to the group for guidance, socially comparing their behaviour with the group. ISI usually involves internalisation. For instance, if a class discussion is happening and a student who is perceived as highly intelligent gives their opinion on the topic, other students might follow and agree with that judgement.

Jenness’ ‘bottle of beans’ experiment in 1932 showed ISI and is an example of internalisation.

In Britain, ethical guidelines for research are published by the British Psychological Society and the purpose of these codes of conduct is to protect research participants, the reputation of psychology and psychologists themselves. With regard to Asch’s experiment, participants were not protected from psychological stress and discomfort which may occur if they disagreed with the majority thus fully informed consent was not provided by participants. Asch also deceived the volunteers by leading them to believe that they were taking part in a ‘vision’ test but the real purpose was to see how the ‘naive’ participant would react to the behavior of the confederates. However, deception was necessary to produce valid results and it is important to remember that codes of conduct are not sufficient in themselves to guarantee that research is ethical. The BPS guidelines (1978) state: “The understanding of human behaviour ameliorates the human condition and enhances human dignity… The balance between the interests of the subject and the humane or scientific value of the research must be weighed carefully… A detailed list of prescribed and proscribed procedures would be impractical… The principles should not be a substitute for considered judgement.”

Fight or Flight Response

Two people are in a fight. Person A wants to fight and Person B wants to flee from the current situation. The biological approach to psychology explains that sensory nerve cells pass the identification of a threat or stress (stimuli) from the environment to the area of the brain called the hypothalamus. Neurosecretory cells in the hypothalamus transmit a signal to the pituitary gland, causing cells there to release a chemical messenger into the bloodstream. At the same time, the hypothalamus transmits a nerve signal down the spinal cord. Both the chemical messenger and nerve impulse will travel to the adrenal gland. Adrenaline is a hormone in the adrenal gland which is secreted when we are afraid, stressed or angry. It also causes the heart rate and stroke volume to increase, preparing us for ‘fight or flight’ (response). The purpose of this physiological reaction is to ready the body for one of two reactions to a perceived threat in our environment — to fight or to flee.

But what influences a person’s choice to either fight or flight?

From the nature-nurture debate, their response could be based on upbringing. Person A’s confrontational personality and fight response could have been shaped by their early experiences  such as being exposed to violence at a young age. It could also be due to their own learning – they believe that they will/can come out on top at the end of the fight and associate fighting with winning as a reward (this is also their own conscious decision making).

Person B’s flight response can be explained in the same way. They could have been taught at an early age to avoid trouble and confrontation as is could be a danger to them. They could have also learned that violence leads to a bad outcome thus avoid it.

From a different angle, by applying Freud’s ego-defence theory and the psychoanalytic approach, Person A may not actually want to fight which means that they are using displacement as an ego defence mechanism to take out their anger to feel better. Person B could have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Similarly, Person A could see B as threatening which causes them to distort reality and believe that they can win the fight by being more violent to protect their conscious mind. Furthermore, if A did see B as a threat, A could be in denial by refusing to believe that B is too threatening to fight.