Objective 9: describe the structure of the human nervous system.
The picture to the left is a perfect example of how the human nervous system works, broken down into the central, peripheral, and enteric nervous systems.
Our first part of our central nervous system is our brain, which perceives and processes our sensory stimuli; in other words, it decodes the messages that we get from our five senses. The brain also helps us execute voluntary motor responses (movements we can force our bodies to perform) and regulates our homeostatic mechanisms, or maintain internal equilibrium. Our spinal cord, also part of the central nervous system, is connected directly to our brain and enables our brain to tell the rest of our body the sensory and motor functions to execute.
There are two main parts to our peripheral nervous system: the nerves and the ganglia. Our nerves are what enables neural transmission back to our brain, which tells use what to do in response to the stimulation being transmitted, while our ganglia is associated with the control of our motor functions and helps decode the message from the nerves on the way to the brain. Our digestive tract, part of our enteric nervous system, is capable of working without the brain and spinal cord because it is responsible for autonomous functions, or functions that can operate independently. Below is the video for "Telegraph Line" by Schoolhouse Rock, giving a further explanation of the human nervous system!
Our first part of our central nervous system is our brain, which perceives and processes our sensory stimuli; in other words, it decodes the messages that we get from our five senses. The brain also helps us execute voluntary motor responses (movements we can force our bodies to perform) and regulates our homeostatic mechanisms, or maintain internal equilibrium. Our spinal cord, also part of the central nervous system, is connected directly to our brain and enables our brain to tell the rest of our body the sensory and motor functions to execute.
There are two main parts to our peripheral nervous system: the nerves and the ganglia. Our nerves are what enables neural transmission back to our brain, which tells use what to do in response to the stimulation being transmitted, while our ganglia is associated with the control of our motor functions and helps decode the message from the nerves on the way to the brain. Our digestive tract, part of our enteric nervous system, is capable of working without the brain and spinal cord because it is responsible for autonomous functions, or functions that can operate independently. Below is the video for "Telegraph Line" by Schoolhouse Rock, giving a further explanation of the human nervous system!
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEoz_rf40A
http://cnx.org/content/m46500/latest/?collection=col11496/latest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XEoz_rf40A
http://cnx.org/content/m46500/latest/?collection=col11496/latest
Objective 10: describe research on the split brain.
Split-brain describes the result when the corpus callosum (a broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain) is severed to some degree. It is an association of symptoms produced by disruption of or interference with the connection between the hemispheres of the brain. The surgical operation of splitting the corpus callosum to produce this condition is usually a last resort to treat refractory epilepsy, if not to reduce the severity and violence of epileptic seizures.
The research on the split brain was originally executed by Michael Gazzaniga and Roger W. Sperry in 1961. These psychologists, the first to study split brains in humans, found that several patients suffered from split-brain syndome after they had undergone a complete calloscotomy. Split-brain syndrome is found in patients where the right hemisphere that controls the left appendages of the body acts independently of the left hemisphere, changing the person's ability to make rational decisions. Though rare, this sometimes results in a type of split personality, where the left hemisphere gives orders of rationality while the right hemisphere gives contradicting commands that often reveal the person's most hidden desires.
More recently, team of researchers from UC Santa Barbara (led by Gazzaniga) further explored the transfer of information. Language is processed in the left side of your brain, so when you read with your left eye, the information initially shows up in the right side of your brain and must be transfered to the left side through the corpus callosum. To test how well the corupus callosum transfers this information, the researchers showed a random list of real and nonsense words to the left or right eye of patients and measured how effectively they were able to tell the difference between the real and made up words. When the words were shown directly to the right eye and then transferred to the left hemisphere, the patients were much more efficient in determining in whether the word was real or not. This proved that the brain has a difficulty in processing information that has to travel a long distance, like when the words were shown to the left eye only.
The following link http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/split-brain/ is to a game where you can "expermient" on a patient whose corpus callosum has been surgically removed. In the game, it is your job to test different things on the different hemispheres of the brain and figure out why he acts the way he does!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/split-brains
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/split-brain/
The research on the split brain was originally executed by Michael Gazzaniga and Roger W. Sperry in 1961. These psychologists, the first to study split brains in humans, found that several patients suffered from split-brain syndome after they had undergone a complete calloscotomy. Split-brain syndrome is found in patients where the right hemisphere that controls the left appendages of the body acts independently of the left hemisphere, changing the person's ability to make rational decisions. Though rare, this sometimes results in a type of split personality, where the left hemisphere gives orders of rationality while the right hemisphere gives contradicting commands that often reveal the person's most hidden desires.
More recently, team of researchers from UC Santa Barbara (led by Gazzaniga) further explored the transfer of information. Language is processed in the left side of your brain, so when you read with your left eye, the information initially shows up in the right side of your brain and must be transfered to the left side through the corpus callosum. To test how well the corupus callosum transfers this information, the researchers showed a random list of real and nonsense words to the left or right eye of patients and measured how effectively they were able to tell the difference between the real and made up words. When the words were shown directly to the right eye and then transferred to the left hemisphere, the patients were much more efficient in determining in whether the word was real or not. This proved that the brain has a difficulty in processing information that has to travel a long distance, like when the words were shown to the left eye only.
The following link http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/split-brain/ is to a game where you can "expermient" on a patient whose corpus callosum has been surgically removed. In the game, it is your job to test different things on the different hemispheres of the brain and figure out why he acts the way he does!
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201211/split-brains
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/split-brain/
objective 11: identify and describe the variables that produce conformity and obedience.
Some of us teenagers are pretty angst-y, wanting to avoid conforming with everybody else and not obeying every little rule, but others find comfort in being a sheep and abiding by codes and regulations at all times. What not everyone understands is where conformity and obedience come from.
Conformity is where we adjust our behavior to be just like everyone else in the group we want to belong to. Solomon Asch did a very simple test on students to study conformity. Pretend that you are the last participant with five other in what you think is a study on visual perception. In Asch's study, a question would be asked to the all of you, and the first person in line would answer and then the second and so on until you answered. All the questions have been easy and you have all been answering correctly until the next question is asked and the first person answers the question wrong. Though you know that their answer is wrong, the second answerer may be so surprised by the first person's answer that they second guess themselves answer incorrectly too. The next person does the same and so on until it's your turn. So do you answer correctly and be the oddball, or do you conform with the rest? Studies have shown that we are most likely to conform if we feel incompetent or insecure, are in a group (especially one where everyone has the same opinion), admire that group, know that we will be judged by the way we behave, and if we come from a place where respect for social standard is highly encouraged. Basically, the more sensitive we are to social norms, the more likely we are to conform.
Not only do social pressures influence our conformity, but they also have an effect on the way we obey people and their commands. As an example, imagine you are assigned the "teacher" to a "learner" for an experiment for Stanley Milgram. Your job is to shock the person if they give an incorrect answer, and the more wrong answers, the higher the voltage of shock the learner will receive. If the person had given so many wrong answers that they were begging you to stop shocking them at such a high voltage, you may feel like you should stop hurting them. The experimenter would command you to go on with the experimenter because it was absolutely essential. The shocks are getting so bad for the learner that they have refused to answer any more questions, but you have been commanded to go on. So what do you do? Milgram asked this question before he began this experiment, and most people predicted that they would stop shocking the learner, but their predictions were wrong. Results showed that most people who played the teacher ended up obeying the experimenter until the very end. This experiment had proven that were are more likely to obey if the person giving orders to us is in any way intimidating and close at hand, and the victim is far away, for we fear that if we don't obey, we will become the victim instead of defying the experimenter. Just listen to Mom's old saying: just because everyone else is, doesn't mean you should.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
Conformity is where we adjust our behavior to be just like everyone else in the group we want to belong to. Solomon Asch did a very simple test on students to study conformity. Pretend that you are the last participant with five other in what you think is a study on visual perception. In Asch's study, a question would be asked to the all of you, and the first person in line would answer and then the second and so on until you answered. All the questions have been easy and you have all been answering correctly until the next question is asked and the first person answers the question wrong. Though you know that their answer is wrong, the second answerer may be so surprised by the first person's answer that they second guess themselves answer incorrectly too. The next person does the same and so on until it's your turn. So do you answer correctly and be the oddball, or do you conform with the rest? Studies have shown that we are most likely to conform if we feel incompetent or insecure, are in a group (especially one where everyone has the same opinion), admire that group, know that we will be judged by the way we behave, and if we come from a place where respect for social standard is highly encouraged. Basically, the more sensitive we are to social norms, the more likely we are to conform.
Not only do social pressures influence our conformity, but they also have an effect on the way we obey people and their commands. As an example, imagine you are assigned the "teacher" to a "learner" for an experiment for Stanley Milgram. Your job is to shock the person if they give an incorrect answer, and the more wrong answers, the higher the voltage of shock the learner will receive. If the person had given so many wrong answers that they were begging you to stop shocking them at such a high voltage, you may feel like you should stop hurting them. The experimenter would command you to go on with the experimenter because it was absolutely essential. The shocks are getting so bad for the learner that they have refused to answer any more questions, but you have been commanded to go on. So what do you do? Milgram asked this question before he began this experiment, and most people predicted that they would stop shocking the learner, but their predictions were wrong. Results showed that most people who played the teacher ended up obeying the experimenter until the very end. This experiment had proven that were are more likely to obey if the person giving orders to us is in any way intimidating and close at hand, and the victim is far away, for we fear that if we don't obey, we will become the victim instead of defying the experimenter. Just listen to Mom's old saying: just because everyone else is, doesn't mean you should.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
objective 12: Discuss the factors that promote bystander apathy and de-individuation and how an examination of moral development helps us understand individuals' responses to these factors.
Bystander apathy, also know as the bystander effect, occurs when people do not offer any help to a victim because other people are present. The website http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/bystander_effect.htm demonstrates examples of the factors that promote bystander apathy. According to ChangingMinds, bystanders goes through a process of five steps where they can decide to do nothing during each step:
Examining moral development (the emergence, change, and understanding of morality from infancy to adulthood) helps us understand the responses individuals have to bystander apathy and de-individuation. The type of moral development an individual has affects how they will react to these situations. If you grow up or are raised with a strong moral character, you are more likely to make stronger, more rational decisions to help the situation, whereas if you grow up with weak moral character, you are more likely to succumb to large group trends. An example of how moral development, bystander apathy, and de-individuation affect children was also featured on ChangingMinds. On Halloween, a bucket of candy was placed outside of a house with a sign that read, "Take One". When a single child went up to get candy, they obeyed the sign and took a single piece, but when a child went up with a group of three or more people, they all took handfuls.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/bystander_effect.htm
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/deindividuation.htm
http://thegazette.com/subject/news/education/higher-education/university/iowa-states-veishea-task-force-takes-shape-20140418
- Notice the event (or be in a hurry and not notice).
- Realize the emergency (or since others are not acting, assume there isn't an emergency).
- Assume responsibility (or convince yourself that others will do it).
- Know what to do (or not).
- Act (or worry about danger, legislation, embarrassment, etc.)
- Anonymity: so I can not be found out
- Diffused responsibility: so I am not responsible for my actions
- Group size: as a larger group increases the above two factors
Examining moral development (the emergence, change, and understanding of morality from infancy to adulthood) helps us understand the responses individuals have to bystander apathy and de-individuation. The type of moral development an individual has affects how they will react to these situations. If you grow up or are raised with a strong moral character, you are more likely to make stronger, more rational decisions to help the situation, whereas if you grow up with weak moral character, you are more likely to succumb to large group trends. An example of how moral development, bystander apathy, and de-individuation affect children was also featured on ChangingMinds. On Halloween, a bucket of candy was placed outside of a house with a sign that read, "Take One". When a single child went up to get candy, they obeyed the sign and took a single piece, but when a child went up with a group of three or more people, they all took handfuls.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/bystander_effect.htm
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/deindividuation.htm
http://thegazette.com/subject/news/education/higher-education/university/iowa-states-veishea-task-force-takes-shape-20140418
objective 13: define learning.
In our textbook, Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules, learning can be defined as "the process of acquiring new and relatively enduring information or behaviors," but what kind of learning is there, and how do we apply it to everyday life?
The second main form of conditioning is operant, where humans and other animals associate a response with a consequence or reward for how we acted. Many tests have been done on different types of animals, but my favorite is the simple "mouse and lever". In this operant condition, a mouse would be put in some kind of containment and it would have no food. The only way the mouse would be able to get food would be to press the lever, thus associating the response of
getting food as the reward for pressing the lever.
Aside from associative learning through conditioning, there is another type of learning: cognitive. In cognitive learning, we acquire mental information that guides our behavior. Observational learning, a form of cognitive learning, is where we learn from other's experiences.
Aside from associative learning through conditioning, there is another type of learning: cognitive. In cognitive learning, we acquire mental information that guides our behavior. Observational learning, a form of cognitive learning, is where we learn from other's experiences.
The classic form of observational learning would be a form of "monkey see, monkey do." If your friend touched an electric fence and got electrocuted, you obviously wouldn't want to touch the electric fence. If your friend touched the electric fence and nothing happened, you would feel safe with touching it too. If your friend touched the electric fence, got electrocuted, and got a million dollars, you would choose to... well, that's another lesson in psychology.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
objective 14: summarize the components of classical conditioning.
We know that classical conditioning is defined as a type of learning where an individual associates two stimuli and anticipates an events, according two Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules. As an expansion of that definition, we must understand that there is more to this type of conditioning than just its definition. To understand the full extent of classical conditioning, we will refer to psychologist Ivan Pavlov's dog experiment as an example.
Classical conditioning, a form of associative
learning, has been used as training for animals (and humans) forever, but is
most famously recognized in Pavlov's Dog experiment. The first stage of
Pavlov's experiment was known as "before conditioning," with an
unconditioned stimulus (US), a stimulus that unconditionally, naturally, and
automatically, triggers a response. Since the response occurs as a result from
an unconditioned stimulus, it is an unconditioned response (UR) or an
unlearned, naturally occurring response. In this study, the unconditioned
stimulus was dog food that, when fed to the dog, resulted in the unconditioned
response of salivation. Still in the "before conditioning" stage,
Pavlov rang the bell for the dog, but the dog did not have a response. Since
the dog had no response at this point, the bell was a neutral stimulus (NS): a
stimulus that elicits no response before conditioning. The second stage of
Pavlov's experiment was "during conditioning." In this stage, Pavlov
took the bell (NS) and rang it for the dog, but then also gave the dog food
(US) which resulted again in salivation (UR). In the final stage of Pavlov's
experiment, "after conditioning," Pavlov rang the bell and the dog began
to salivate because it expected food. Since Pavlov was able to make the dog
salivate without food, salivation then becomes a conditioned response (CR),
where a learned response occurs to a previously neutral stimulus. The bell then
becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS), which is defined as an originally
irrelevant stimulus that comes to trigger a conditioned response (CR) after
associate with a different unconditioned stimulus (US).
Classical conditioning not only works on animal training, but it affects humans in more ways than we realize. Take a look at the example to the right. You may remember when you were a kid, at home during a thunderstorm. The first time you saw lightning, you probably heard thunder afterwards that caused you to get scared or hide under your bed. The next time you saw lightning, whether it was in that same storm or a different one later on, you more than likely winced or went crying to Mom because you knew that the thunder was coming!
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
objective 15: describe stimulus generalization, higher order conditioning, discrimination, and extinction in classical conditioning.
As we know, classical conditioning is a type of associative learning where a subject learns to associate two stimulus and anticipate an event. We also know that through classical conditioning, an unconditioned stimulus and unconditioned result are turned into conditions stimuli and results when another unconditioned stimulus is introduced. More recently, a psychologist has expanded on Pavlov's study of classical conditioning to explain the major conditioning processes.
Stimulus generalization is when, after a response has been conditioned, stimuli similar to the conditioned stimulus may elude to the same response. Stimulus generalization can be seen in higher-order conditioning, where a new neutral stimulus can become a conditioned stimulus, but it must first be associated with a previously conditioned stimulus. For example, say that your dog has learned that if you ring a bell, then the dog will get food. If the dog realizes that a light is on whenever you ring the bell, the dog might respond whenever the light is on, thinking that the light means the dog gets food. Through the process of higher-order conditioning, the dog went through stimulus generalization because it gave the same response to the light as it did to the bell in order for it to get food.
Another part of the major conditioning process discrimination. Discrimination is when a subject has learned the ability to tell the difference between a conditioned stimulus and a stimuli. Refer back to your dog. A few times when you're about to give your dog food, you not only ring a bell, but jingle your keys. Because the dog recognizes the sound of the bell, it will come running for food, but keep in mind that it also heard the keys each time. The next day when you're getting ready to leave for work, you jingle your keys as you pull them out of your pocket. Your dog will come running because it has associated this sound with getting food, too. If you don't feed it this time, then your dog will be able to distinguish between the bell (the conditioned stimulus) and the keys will become an irrelevant stimuli.
The last major conditioning process is extinction. Extinction occurs in the classical conditioning process when an unconditioned stimulus does not follow a conditioned stimulus, and thus the conditioned response diminishes. This often occurs in operant conditioning, where we learn to associate actions as consequences. As an example, imagine you just got a puppy and you're trying to teach it to sit. In operant conditioning, you would tell the puppy to sit until it sat, and when it sat, you would give it a treat. You would repeat this process over and over again with the same trick or different tricks, rewarding with a treat each time because it would strengthen the behavior. If it was only the second time and your puppy sat but you did not reward it, it would be confused because it wouldn't associate sitting with getting a treat. As a result, the result of sitting would become extinct because associate the two. All in all, just give your puppy a treat no matter what because hey it's a cute little baby puppy and it's adorable and you love it to bits and pieces and you know if you don't give it a treat it'll give you those puppy dog eyes and then you'll be heartbroken. Nobody needs that kind of pain.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
Stimulus generalization is when, after a response has been conditioned, stimuli similar to the conditioned stimulus may elude to the same response. Stimulus generalization can be seen in higher-order conditioning, where a new neutral stimulus can become a conditioned stimulus, but it must first be associated with a previously conditioned stimulus. For example, say that your dog has learned that if you ring a bell, then the dog will get food. If the dog realizes that a light is on whenever you ring the bell, the dog might respond whenever the light is on, thinking that the light means the dog gets food. Through the process of higher-order conditioning, the dog went through stimulus generalization because it gave the same response to the light as it did to the bell in order for it to get food.
Another part of the major conditioning process discrimination. Discrimination is when a subject has learned the ability to tell the difference between a conditioned stimulus and a stimuli. Refer back to your dog. A few times when you're about to give your dog food, you not only ring a bell, but jingle your keys. Because the dog recognizes the sound of the bell, it will come running for food, but keep in mind that it also heard the keys each time. The next day when you're getting ready to leave for work, you jingle your keys as you pull them out of your pocket. Your dog will come running because it has associated this sound with getting food, too. If you don't feed it this time, then your dog will be able to distinguish between the bell (the conditioned stimulus) and the keys will become an irrelevant stimuli.
The last major conditioning process is extinction. Extinction occurs in the classical conditioning process when an unconditioned stimulus does not follow a conditioned stimulus, and thus the conditioned response diminishes. This often occurs in operant conditioning, where we learn to associate actions as consequences. As an example, imagine you just got a puppy and you're trying to teach it to sit. In operant conditioning, you would tell the puppy to sit until it sat, and when it sat, you would give it a treat. You would repeat this process over and over again with the same trick or different tricks, rewarding with a treat each time because it would strengthen the behavior. If it was only the second time and your puppy sat but you did not reward it, it would be confused because it wouldn't associate sitting with getting a treat. As a result, the result of sitting would become extinct because associate the two. All in all, just give your puppy a treat no matter what because hey it's a cute little baby puppy and it's adorable and you love it to bits and pieces and you know if you don't give it a treat it'll give you those puppy dog eyes and then you'll be heartbroken. Nobody needs that kind of pain.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
objective 16: describe the application of the principles of classical conditioning to the therapeutic situation (systematic desensitization and aversive counter conditioning).
To understand how the principles of classical conditioning are applied to a therapeutic situation, we must first understand what the therapeutic situation is and what systematic desensitization and aversive counter conditioning are. Systematic desensitization is used in the therapeutic situation of exposure therapy to associate a “happy state” with increasing triggers of anxiety. Aversive conditioning, however, is a type of counter-conditioning that associates an “unhappy state” with an unwanted behavior. Though both are procedures of classical conditioning, they yield very different results.
Exposure therapy is a technique used to treat anxieties and phobias by exposing a patient to the things they fear. By doing this, the expected result is for the patient to overcome their fear. Joseph Wolpe’s philosophy was that though you cannot be relaxed and anxious simultaneously, you can learn how to relax when an anxiety-provoking stimulus is present. For example, pretend you have an incredibly serious fear of spiders. When talking to a behavior therapist, they might have you make a pyramid of your anxiety towards spiders. In this pyramid, the bottom may be the most mildly anxiety-provoking situations, like a small spider hiding in the corner of your bathroom. At the top of the pyramid would lay the most panic-provoking situations, like a large, poisonous spider right next to you. The use of progressive relaxation is then used in the systematic desensitization process. A therapist would have you relax your entire body, but then imagine a mildly anxious situation, such as the small spider in your bathroom. If you felt anxious in imagining this spider, then your therapist would have you stop thinking about it and relax again. This process would continue on until you didn’t feel anxious about the situation anymore.
Aversive conditioning is very different from exposure therapy and systematic desensitization in the sense that instead of associating a “happy state” with a harmless situation, it associates an “unhappy state” with a harmful situation. An example of this conditioning would be training a teenage girl not to bite her nails anymore. To do this, she would paint her nails with a nail polish that made her feel sick afterwards. The chemical in the nail polish (the unconditioned stimulus) would make her sick (an unconditioned reaction), so she would associate biting her nails (the neutral stimulus) with the chemical in the nail polish and getting nauseas afterwards. As a result, nail biting would become a controlled stimulus to the now controlled reaction of nausea.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules
Exposure therapy is a technique used to treat anxieties and phobias by exposing a patient to the things they fear. By doing this, the expected result is for the patient to overcome their fear. Joseph Wolpe’s philosophy was that though you cannot be relaxed and anxious simultaneously, you can learn how to relax when an anxiety-provoking stimulus is present. For example, pretend you have an incredibly serious fear of spiders. When talking to a behavior therapist, they might have you make a pyramid of your anxiety towards spiders. In this pyramid, the bottom may be the most mildly anxiety-provoking situations, like a small spider hiding in the corner of your bathroom. At the top of the pyramid would lay the most panic-provoking situations, like a large, poisonous spider right next to you. The use of progressive relaxation is then used in the systematic desensitization process. A therapist would have you relax your entire body, but then imagine a mildly anxious situation, such as the small spider in your bathroom. If you felt anxious in imagining this spider, then your therapist would have you stop thinking about it and relax again. This process would continue on until you didn’t feel anxious about the situation anymore.
Aversive conditioning is very different from exposure therapy and systematic desensitization in the sense that instead of associating a “happy state” with a harmless situation, it associates an “unhappy state” with a harmful situation. An example of this conditioning would be training a teenage girl not to bite her nails anymore. To do this, she would paint her nails with a nail polish that made her feel sick afterwards. The chemical in the nail polish (the unconditioned stimulus) would make her sick (an unconditioned reaction), so she would associate biting her nails (the neutral stimulus) with the chemical in the nail polish and getting nauseas afterwards. As a result, nail biting would become a controlled stimulus to the now controlled reaction of nausea.
Psychology Tenth Edition in Modules