Overlaps between cognition and health

Cog_health_blue

There are several overlaps between the cognitive approach and the health option. For example, cognitive psychology can explain stress through the theory of cognitive appraisal: how we appraise our level of stress can affect the level that we experience. The theory of planned behaviour can explain addictive behaviours and the varying success of health promotion programmes, mainly through its concept of perceived behavioural control. But remember, as with any option, no one approach can act independently of the others. We are our biology, our cognition and our social interactions – no getting away from it!

References:

Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Kuhl, J. & Beckmann, J. (eds.), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelberg: Springer.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, pp. 179 211. 

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From Psychological Stress to the Emotions: A History of Changing Outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, pp. 1-21.

Lazarus, R. S., & Alfert, E. (1964). Short-circuiting of threat by experimentally altering cognitive appraisal. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(2), pp. 195-205.

Planning your course effectively – more overlaps

Cog blue corrected

Similarly to the biological approach, there are many overlaps between the cognitive approach and the options of abnormal psychology, development, health and human relationships.  For example, the psychology of cognitive processes and their reliability can explain clinical biases in diagnosis of disorders, debates regarding the etiology of  disorders and also inform their treatment.

Watch out for more of these!

Cognitive biases – don’t let them confuse you.

Studying the reliability of thinking and decision-making leads us into the slightly

chimpanzee-978809_640
System 2 thinking

complex world of System 1 (fast) and System 2 (slow) thinking and heuristics.  Teaching cognitive biases is straightforward, and less is more.  The key point is that we are inclined to base our current thinking and decision-making on past experiences and present perceptions.  Our memories distort the past, and the media and our selective attention distort our present, especially if we are being pushed into a fast decision.

Tversky & Kahneman (1974) review a range of research in which they themselves have tested different heuristics, looking for evidence of ways in which System 1 thinking (effortless, fast, a short-cut to the answer) may operate when tested under specific conditions.  They describe three different heuristics, leading to cognitive bias.

The representative heuristic is based on the idea that one event is representative of other events very similar to it, using the idea of how probable something is according to the individual’s prior knowledge of it. Even though participants knew that 70% of the descriptions of people that they had been given had referred to engineers, while 30% had referred to lawyers, when faced with a description of a man who could have been either, they judged that there was an equal chance of John being either an engineer or a lawyer.  Similarly, when given a description of a shy quiet person, they were immediately judged to be most likely to be a librarian, even though the list of possible occupations included those that were much more statistically probable.  This can be seen as the basis for stereotypes – taking a shortcut based on prior knowledge and assumptions.

The availability heuristic works by people tending to judge an event using the probability of its occurring, according to their prior knowledge: e.g. a middle-aged man with chest pains might be assumed to be having a heart attack but a four-year-old child with similar pains would not elicit the same response as four-year-old children do not tend to have heart attacks.  This can lead to bias in diagnosis, as clinicians base their diagnoses on previous examples that come readily to mind; they are cognitively available.

The anchoring bias involves an initial value or starting-point in an information processing task determining how the final value is arrived at. The researchers tested high school students asking them to estimate one of the following: 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 or 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8. Of course, each answer is the same as the numbers are identical per list. What Tversky and Kahneman found was that the descending list (8x7x6 etc.) produced a much higher estimate than the ascending scale (1x2x3 etc.) with the researchers concluding that the first value anchored the value as either high or low and that this is what caused the adjustment to the estimations.  This is related to our first judgements about people: if we judge them in a positive light because of their friendly behaviour, this can ‘anchor’ our appraisal of their subsequent behaviour.

Use these examples as the basis for discussing how stereotypes are developed, or how diagnoses can lack validity, and they are also useful for discussing the lab experiment method.  I am sure students can think of many more examples of how these heuristics can occasionally (not always) work to distort our thinking and decision-making in real life. But that might take some time and some logical, patient reasoning using System 2 thinking!

The new IA process for IB Diploma – get started!

road-1668916_640

Let’s get started! This is a useful summary for teachers and students of the process for the new IA (internally-assessed student-conducted experiment…now you see why the name is shortened 🙂  This will first be assessed in May 2019, and I’m sure some of you are getting started soon.

Group work is mandatory.  Up to 4 students in a group, and preferably each group conducting a different experiment, so you don’t run out of participants.  The experiment is run together by the group to collect the raw data, but every section, and all data calculations, have to be performed and written about individually.  

Statistical Analysis must be conducted by everyone.  Descriptive statistics identify if there is a difference between the two conditions and inferential statistical analysis tells you whether or not this difference is significant at the p<0.05 level.  Unless you are an expert statistician, it is easier to just manipulate the independent variable once to give two conditions under which you measure the dependent variable. Plan how you are going to do this, and which tests you need to use before even starting your experiment.

Ethical Considerations – be sure that your experiment will cause no harm or stress to the participants, who may not be animals or young children.  Conformity experiments are not allowed, because they are stressful, and you may not ask your participants to eat or drink anything in order to test the effects. Neither may you deprive them of sleep.  Your appendices at the very end of your report should contain a blank copy of the informed consent form, a copy of your briefing and debriefing notes, raw data tables and your calculations for the analysis.

IA Report – This needs a header containing the following information:  title; your IB candidate code and the codes of all group members; date, month and year of submission; no. of words.

__________________________

The Report should be between 1800 and 2200 words and split into the following 4 sections:

Introduction  (6 marks) –  Contains the aim of the experiment, and explains the link between the experiment and the model or theory on which it is based.  (Most likely your experiment will be based on another study or experiment, but you need to know the underlying theory and show the link).  The hypotheses should be written out carefully, and contain the operationalised independent and dependent variable.  It is probably easier to write these separately first and then combine them to make the hypothesis.

Exploration (4 marks) – This is where you describe your procedure, including the design, sampling technique, participant characteristics, controlled variables and materials.  Write it very carefully, as you will want to refer back to it later in your last (Evaluation) section.

Analysis (6 marks) – Consists of correctly chosen and applied descriptive and inferential statistics.  The descriptive statistical analysis results should be shown in a bar chart (graph) that is carefully labelled.  The inferential statistics results need to be interpreted in terms of what they show about the hypothesis.  Do you have to accept or reject your null hypothesis, and why?

Evaluation (6 marks) – This is where you explain your results, in relation to the theory/model and study on which you based your experiment.  You need to explain the strengths and limitations of your design, sample and procedure and suggest how you could have improved upon what you did.  We cannot always anticipate the effect of decisions we made earlier when deciding how to conduct the experiment, but we can explain their effect at the end.

All IAs need a list of references at the back, and the appendices follow this.  They do not count towards the word count.

__________________________

Remember – it doesn’t have to be a complex experiment.  The simpler the better.  Old ‘favourites’ from Cognitive Psychology always do well: Loftus and Palmer, Stroop, Peterson & Peterson and Bransford & Johnson are all tried and tested studies from the area of memory.