Explanation on a couple of prac exam questions

[jinny1]

When describing ethical breaches in Little Albert... i say voluntary participation and withdrawal rights but i dont understand exactly how they were breached... if you just say the baby had not voluntarily participated or had no withdrawal rights, that would mean all experiments with babies would be unethical...

This is a question from 2007 TSSM.

Question 43
Which schedule of reinforcement provides the response rate that is the most resistant to extinction?
A. Variable interval schedule
B. Variable ratio schedule
C. Fixed interval schedule
D. Fixed ratio schedule

picked C answer is D....my psych teacher also told me its D...i think every prac exam question i get on this says its Fixed Ratio and i'm pretty sure i read on grivas textbook or A+ that its fixed ratio...and so does several other internet sources..

please dont let this question be on the damn exam... There would be absolute pandemonium

[matt123]

When describing ethical breaches in Little Albert... i say voluntary participation and withdrawal rights but i dont understand exactly how they were breached... if you just say the baby had not voluntarily participated or had no withdrawal rights, that would mean all experiments with babies would be unethical...

This is a question from 2007 TSSM.

Question 43
Which schedule of reinforcement provides the response rate that is the most resistant to extinction?
A. Variable interval schedule
B. Variable ratio schedule
C. Fixed interval schedule
D. Fixed ratio schedule

picked C answer is D....my psych teacher also told me its D...i think every prac exam question i get on this says its Fixed Ratio and i'm pretty sure i read on grivas textbook or A+ that its fixed ratio...and so does several other internet sources..

please dont let this question be on the damn exam... There would be absolute pandemonium

Firstly.
Studies with children such as little albert. I would mention "informed consent".
this means the parents are informed of the purpose of the study , the nature of the study and any risks associated.
also you make a good point about children , however its important to understand The parents CAN withdraw their children from anytime of the study and take their results

The MC question you posted.
I would say A . and if it comes on the exam I will be sticking with A ( variable interval).
I DEFINITELY dont think its " fixed ratio" .. maybe "variable ratio" .. defs not fixed.

hmmmm

[minilunchbox]

When describing ethical breaches in Little Albert... i say voluntary participation and withdrawal rights but i dont understand exactly how they were breached... if you just say the baby had not voluntarily participated or had no withdrawal rights, that would mean all experiments with babies would be unethical...

This is a question from 2007 TSSM.

Question 43
Which schedule of reinforcement provides the response rate that is the most resistant to extinction?
A. Variable interval schedule
B. Variable ratio schedule
C. Fixed interval schedule
D. Fixed ratio schedule

picked C answer is D....my psych teacher also told me its D...i think every prac exam question i get on this says its Fixed Ratio and i'm pretty sure i read on grivas textbook or A+ that its fixed ratio...and so does several other internet sources..

please dont let this question be on the damn exam... There would be absolute pandemonium

Yeah the extinction question is definitely for a schedule that is variable, not fixed.

[jinny1]

what does it mean to operational???

can i just write blah blach would display more aggressive behaviour than blah blah or do i have to specify which aggressive behaviour thise is.? like swearing/fighting etc...

also i still dont understand how withdrawl rights/ voluntary participation was breached in lil alberts study

thanks

[Slumdawg]

what does it mean to operational???

can i just write blah blach would display more aggressive behaviour than blah blah or do i have to specify which aggressive behaviour thise is.? like swearing/fighting etc...

also i still dont understand how withdrawl rights/ voluntary participation was breached in lil alberts study

thanks

Wasn't basically EVERY ethical consideration breached in little albert? You could justify any principle I reckon.

[Spreadbury]

Wasn't basically EVERY ethical consideration breached in little albert? You could justify any principle I reckon.

I agree, I think you could. there are of course, the more reliable principles that were breached though (informed consent, withdrawal rights)

[laijiawen]

Neap 2008
Short Answer Question 2b
What is the duration of working memory?
Answer says 12-20seconds
I thought duration of working memory was up to 2 seconds?

[jinny1]

i thought duration of working memory was exactly same as STM?

[Glockmeister]

Definitely not 2 seconds - it's about 12-20 (exactly the same as STM)

Wasn't basically EVERY ethical consideration breached in little albert? You could justify any principle I reckon.

I agree, I think you could. there are of course, the more reliable principles that were breached though (informed consent, withdrawal rights)

Because of that, you're more than likely to get this as a Short Answer question - provided you can justify it, it's ok.

[matt123]

i thought duration of working memory was exactly same as STM?

Okay lemme just clear things up for you.

Firstly.
I think EVERY ethical principle except for "deception" was breached in the study with Lil Albert.
Dont ask me how deception wasnt? .. idk . i just read it somewhere.

Secondly
Duration of working memory = 18-20 second .. NOT 12-20 and NOT up to 2 seconds.

[Spreadbury]

Albert's mother wasn't informed of the nature/ details of the study. don't flame me, I know this is informed consent. but I think in neglecting to provide informed consent and omitting details, Watson deceived the mother. thus you could argue deception

[Spreadbury]

a question in 2008 NEAP asked if the results of an experiment testing monkey's in a similar experiment to Harlow's could be generalised to humans. no p value accompanied the results, and I said they could not be generalised as no inferential statistics were provided and no conclusions could be drawn from descriptive statistics

right or wrong?

[Glockmeister]

a question in 2008 NEAP asked if the results of an experiment testing monkey's in a similar experiment to Harlow's could be generalised to humans. no p value accompanied the results, and I said they could not be generalised as no inferential statistics were provided and no conclusions could be drawn from descriptive statistics

right or wrong?

I'm pretty sure that's ok.

I'm also sure that it'd also mention something about the fact that monkeys were used, not humans

[Spreadbury]

can we also mention that biological factors are more easily generalised? (according to grivas)

[Glockmeister]

Gotta be more specific than that - how is it related to the monkey example.