¡GoConqr estrena diseño! Cuéntanos qué te parece.

Regístrate gratis

Fichas

Studies

Cara White Inglés 57 fichas

Fichas del conjunto (57)

  1. 1RaineThis is a classic study
  2. 2What was the aim of the study?To determine whether the prefrontal cortex worked differently in NGRI prisoners especially in areas linked with violence
  3. 3Who were the experimental participants?41 criminals with murder/manslaughter convictions:
    -6 with schizophrenia
    -23 with organic brain damage
    -3 substance abusers
    -2 with an affective disorder
    -3 with hyperactivity or LD
    -2 with passive aggressive/ paranoid personality disorder
  4. 4Who were the control participants?Matched pairs design on sex and age
    All screened for general health (examination, medical history and interview)
    No history of seizures, head trauma or substance abuse.
  5. 5What happened before the scan?ppts were medication free 2 weeks before
  6. 6What happened during the scan?Scan was given 32 minutes into the task
  7. 7Compared to the controls what was function like in the prefrontal cortex of the NGRI ppts?The activity is lower so rational decision making is lower
  8. 8Compared to the controls what was function like in the parallel areas of the NGRI ppts?Lower - especially in the amygdala gyrus and bilateral superior parietal regions.
  9. 9Compared to the controls what was function like in the occipital lobe of the NGRI ppts?Higher
  10. 10Compared to the controls what was function like in the temporal lobe of the NGRI ppts?It is incidental, unchanged
  11. 11What about in sub-cortical areas?-Lower activity in the corpus callosum
    -Asymmetrical activity in the amygdala (low left, high right)
    - Asymmetrical activity in medial temporal lobe
    -High levels of activity in the right of the thalamus
  12. 12What can we conclude?These brain differences associated with many behavioural changes that could be linked to violent behaviour.
  13. 13GAndrocentric
    Not representative of all violent offenders
  14. 14RMatched pairs so individual differences are accounted for
    PET scans are reliable
  15. 15ACan only be applied to criminals
    Brain structure may not be related to behaviour
  16. 16VNo sample
    No drugs for 2 weeks
    Variables such as dominant hand were controlled
  17. 17E1- ppts are anonymus
    2- Informed consent was given
    3- Meds were withdrawn, harm?
  18. 18LiThis is a contemporary study
  19. 19What was the aim of the study?To investigate the relationship between chronic heroin use and changes in areas of the brain specifically the cingulate gyrus
  20. 20Who were the experimental participants?14 male heroin addicts with an average age of 35 recruited from a rehab centre in China and had been using heroin for an average of 89 months
    All were drug-free, right handed and mentally and physically healthy
  21. 21Who were the control participants?15 males matched on everything but drug use
  22. 22Which fMRI scans were performed?Resting state - 5 minutes focussing on a target
    Cue induction - 24 drug-related photos and 24 neutral pictures for 2 seconds with a interval of 4-12 seconds
  23. 23What were the results?- Cravings reported
    -Higher activity in the PCC and bilateral insula and between bilateral dorsal stratium
    -Stronger pathways at rest shows the addicts were more ready to respond to cravings
    - Positive correlation between
  24. 24G-Androcentric
    -Small sample
    -Ethnocentric (only Chinese ppts)
  25. 25RStandardised behaviour
  26. 26AApplied to understanding of addiction and recovery
  27. 27VAll ppts were drug-free
    No ppts have mental health issues
    Matched pairs (individual differences)
    All medically healthy
  28. 28E1- Identities kept secret
    2- No deception
    3 - Consent was informed
    4 - Could affect recovery
  29. 29BanduraClassic
  30. 30What was the aim of the study?To determine whether exposure to aggression will influence behaviour
  31. 31Who were the participants?72 children from Stanford University (36 boys, 36 boys) with a mean age of 52 months
  32. 32How were they grouped?Eight experimental groups of six, four saw an aggressive role model (2 same sex, 2 opposite) and four saw a non-aggressive role model (2 same sex, 2 opposite)
  33. 33How was the control group treated?They were treated the same but were showed no role-model
  34. 34How were baseline aggression levels controlled?By matching similar rated children to similar controls
  35. 35What was the first step?Children asked to sit at a table and play with potato prints and stickers
  36. 36What was the second step?The child was shown toys and told that they couldn't play with them so that they were frustrated
  37. 37What was the third step?A model was brought into the room
  38. 38What happened in the aggressive condition ?The model attacked the doll and verbal statements were used
  39. 39What happened in the non-aggressive one?The model just played with the toys
  40. 40What was the next step?Observation of how the children played
  41. 41Which aggressive toys were in the room?-Bobo doll
    -Mallet and pegboard
    -Dart guns (2)
    -Tetherball
  42. 42Which non-aggressive toys were in the room?-Cars and trucks
    -Tea set
    -Farm animal plastic models
    -Dolls (2)
    -Crayons and paper
    -Bears (3)
  43. 43How was the data gathered?ppts were score:
    1- Imitative verbal aggression
    2- Imitative non-aggressive verbal statements
    3- Imitative physical aggression
  44. 44What were the results?Children with an aggressive model were more violent than those without and children with a same sex role model were more likely to copy the model
  45. 45What can we conclude?Bandura concludes that behaviour can be learned by imitation even if it hasn’t been reinforced.Bandura links the gender effects to cultural expectations
  46. 46GLarge sample
    Children had unusual home lives
    Can only generalise child behaviour
  47. 47RStandardised
    2 observers, inter-rater reliability
    Study was filmed
  48. 48AAgainst the catharsis argument for violent pass times
    Media censorship
  49. 49VLacks ecological validity
    Demand characteristics (addressed by human bobo doll variation)
    Other explainations (Raine etc)
  50. 50E1- Film taken not confidential
    2 - No consent from children
    3- No protection from harm or distress
    4 - No right to withdraw
    5- Children were deceived
  51. 51CapafonsPlanes
  52. 52Aim?To validate the effectiveness of systematic desensitisation as a treatment for fear of flying
  53. 53Participants?41 participants found via a media campaign, all had a fear of flying
  54. 54Groups?20 (8 males, 12 females) = treatment group
    21 (9 males 2 females) = control group
  55. 55Diagnostic scales?IDG-FV
    EMV
    EPAV
    Physiological signs
  56. 56When were they used?IDG-FV (before and after)
    EMV (for the flight, pre flight activities and just seeing a plane)
    EPAV (measures catastrophic fear)
  57. 57—

Información

Descripción
Fichas sobre Studies, creado por Cara White el 21/05/2017.
Creado por
Cara White
Visitas
1
Valoración

Escríbenos

¿Sobre qué es tu mensaje?

¿Qué te parece el nuevo diseño?

¿Te gusta?