Psychological, Behavioural and Emotional Traits within an Individual - Essay Example

ic Studies in Psychology Introduction Psychology constitutes the study of behaviour in human beings. It also tries to study the mind in order to detect psychological, behavioural and emotional traits within an individual. Classic studies are some of the experiments in psychology that try to define how human beings think, why they act the way they do and who they are (James, 2009). The raging question is on whether classic experiments merely explain what is already known. The best way to answer and discuss this question is by having a look at the various studies of psychology. Although classic theories explain what is already known, most of the knowledge derived from classic studies is new to human beings. Classic studies of Psychology One of the classic studies is “The Stanford Prison Experiment” that was carries out in Stanford University (Geoff, 2010). The main aim of the experiment was to study how behaviour in human beings is influenced by variables that are situational. This was to be done by studying how a person would react if they were either in prison or under prison guards. The experiment was looking at how social circumstances can affect behaviour in human beings. A deride prison was set up in an underground room of a psychology building in Stanford with twenty four students who were psychologically and social perfect selected to act as prisoners and as prison guards (Richardson, Goodwin & Vine, 2011). Prisoners were doomed to stay in their prison cells for twenty-four hours in a day while those guarding them took shifts within eight hours in a day. The prison was under surveillance using hidden cameras. The experiment was brought to a halt after six days of starting due to evilness exhibited by guards who would torture prisoners and thus inflict mental torment. This made the prisoners to suffer from excessive emotional trauma and nervousness. This experiment was meant to showcase how behaviour in human beings can be affected by situations. When guards were placed in a situation where they yielded much power, they abused that power and behaved in a manner that they would not in their normal lives. The prisoners on the other hand did not yield power or any freedom and they thus ended up being submissive and disheartened (Geoff, 2010). This experiment is revealed a new knowledge since people were not aware of emotional state under such conditions. Watson a famous psychologist conducted an experiment to display how expressive reactions can be naturally conditioned in human beings. The experiment was known as “Little Albert”. A child named “Little Albert” was used in the experiment. The child was open to elements or stimuli such as a rabbit, masks, a monkey, newspapers that were burning and a rat that was white in colour (Richardson, Goodwin & Vine, 2011). At first, the child did not exhibit any fear to any of the objects it was exposed to. Later on after a sometimes, a white rat was exposed to the child. Watson then produced a deafening noise by striking on a metallic pipe thus making “Little Albert” to break into tears. The experiment was carried out by pairing the deafening noise with the rat and Albert would break into tears every time he saw the rat. The experiment showed a new knowledge on how conditioning that is classical in nature reinforces an expressive response (Steven, 1993). Solomon, a psychologist who practiced his skills in the 1950s, came up with a sequence of experiments, which aimed at showing how compliance in groups yielded power. The experiments were known as “The Asch Conformity Experiments.” At the end of these experiments, the people used were questioned as to why they had towed with a certain group. Most of the participants always stated that they well knew that the group they had towed along with was incorrect but they wanted to avoid being ridiculed. A few others actually thought that other participants in the group had provided correct answers. The experiments revealed something new on how people conform to groups in order to have a sense of belonging and they often believe that there are people who are smarter than they are. Conformity can be more profound in real life when one comes face to face with stimuli, which are much more indistinct. People will often practice loyalty to certain groups in their social lives (James, 2009). Ivan Pavlov, a Russian psychologist, took his time to study the process of ingestion in dogs. His classical study is referred to as “Pavlov’s dogs”. While studying how digestion in dogs takes place, Pavlov realised that each time an assistant would get into the room, the dogs would start to salivate. He would thus use his assistants to feed the dogs with items that were both suitable for eating and non-edible and then measure how much saliva each item would produce. His experiment would eventually lead to “classical conditioning” in which behaviour is conditioned. “Classical conditioning” remains to be one of the greatest experiments of psychology (Geoff, 2010). Although human beings experience salivating when they see foods that they love, they are not aware of the conditioning process. Additionally, they could not be knowing that other animals also experience similar feelings. Love is another study grouped as classical in psychology. Harry Harlow, an American studied love and its influences. His main aim was to show the power of love to human beings. He used a monkey to exhibit how love from a mother is important during childhood and when a child is growing because it promotes healthy growth. He used unethical methods that were horrifically cruel to bring out elemental truths on development in a child. He used proxy mothers to “raise” monkeys, which young and had been separated from their mothers. There were two proxy mothers, one was made up of cloth and did not provide any food while the other mother who was constructed using wire provided the baby monkeys with food. It was noted that the baby monkeys spent much of their time with their mother who was made of cloths. They would turn to this mother for security and some comfort. This experiment demonstrated how affection and love from parents is vital for growth and development in children (Steven, 1993). When young children or babies are denied affection and love from their parents, they end up being emotionally disturbed. Stanley conducted some experiments to show case how authority and obedience worked hand in hand. These experiments were named after him as “Milgram experiments”. He used generators that would be used to apply shock on others. Participants that would apply shock to others were referred to as teachers and those to whom shock was delivered to were students. Students would get electro-shocked each time they gave an answer that was incorrect (Richardson, Goodwin & Vine, 2011). In real sense, students been electro-shocked were just people who were pretending. It would get to a point and the students would refuse to answer questions. The teachers would then be instructed to carry on with the process of shocking the students. This would then be used to measure obedience. This experiment demonstrated a new concept that obedience can be influenced by an authority; people will often obey orders from those in power regardless of whether they are doing a negative or cruel thing. This simply means that people can be corrupted by power and up portraying obedience that is blind. This was also the case with people who carried out holocausts on Jews. They simply followed orders blindly (Geoff, 2010). Bandura came up with an experiment that show cased how children acquire aggression. His experiment is famously referred to as “The Bobo Doll experiment”. He used the “social learning theory” to demonstrate that people learn through observation and contact with people. He exposed children to two models who were adults. One adult was aggressive while the other was not. The children were then separated from their models and observations were made on their behaviours (Richardson, Goodwin & Vine, 2011). The experiment laid into fact the notion that behaviour can be acquired through imitations and by observation. When children are exposed to aggressive behaviours, they end up being aggressive or using aggression as a tool to respond to situations. Social life can thus depict the nature of behaviour in children. Social life can also fasten or slow down the pace at which children acquire behaviour. In normal life, children who were exposed to abuse or who have aggressive parents become aggressive too when they grow up (James, 2009). They also turn violent an abusive due to the fact that they were exposed to aggression and they ended up acquiring this behaviour from their immediate environment. Discussion The notion that classic studies merely tell us what we already know is to an extent true, but there are supporting facts that indicate that it is not the case. Psychology simply involves what is common and what it does is to provide facts that support or agree to things we already know. In most experiments carried out, the participants did not know that they were really be used to test on something. This means that they acted naturally, which supports the fact that classic studies do not merely tell us what we know. If the participants in one way knew what they were testing, they would have acted centrally to predictions and prove the experiments wrong but they acted naturally (Joanne, 2012). Milgram’s experiments also dispute the notion that classical studies tell us what we merely know. This is because many people would agree that they could not obey orders to practise evil on their fellow human beings. The experiment proved that situations possess massive powers that manage our behaviour. This kind of power is beyond our notice until we come face to face with it. The fact that we make choices blindly without knowing why or without exhibiting any awareness to the choices we make justifies the fact that classic studies do not merely tell us what we know. What human beings do is to try to use rationalisation to justify the blind choices we make (Joanne, 2012). Bandura’s experiment also exposes the fact that classic studies do not merely tell us what we know. A large number of adults who are aggressive and abusive acquire this kind of behaviour through observation and contact with people who are abusive and aggressive (Richardson, Goodwin & Vine, 2011). This means that such aggressive behaviour grows in them and they end up exhibiting such behaviours unawares or without any knowledge of what they are doing. This quickly points that we have no control or little control to how our minds work. This means that classic studies do not merely tell us what we already know. In real life, we find ourselves associating with certain groups of people. This happens naturally without even our knowledge. People will often conform to a certain group naturally. This means that classic studies do not just tell us what we already know. The fact that we do natural things without any knowledge or sense of awareness on what we are doing shows that classical studies do not merely tell us what we know (Vilen, 2011). There are facts that, however, support the fact that classic studies tell us merely what we already know. In most cases, research or experiments try to tell us what is obvious and what common sense is. In Harlow’s experiment, in which he used monkeys, the findings were that there is unquestionable proof that children require affection and to be shown love in order for them to experience standard development as they grow up. This experiment ignored what is common and did not take into consideration views from mothers and families. The findings of the experiment are obvious. The criticism levelled against classical studies also justify the fact that they tell us what we merely know. The “Bobo doll” for example was criticised on the fact that it would not apply in real life since it was carried out in a laboratory. Another fact that shows that classical studies tell us what we merely know is that classical experiments may have outcomes that have been over determined. The experiments also do not take into account inner feelings or experiences but rather take into account external outcomes. These points to the fact that classic studies merely tell us what we already know (Vilen, 2011). References Geoff, R. (2010). Classic Studies in Psychology. New York: Pantheon. James, G. (2009). Research In Psychology: Methods and Design. Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill. Joanne, S. (2012). Social Psychology: Revisiting the Classic Studies. London: Routledge. Richardson, P., Goodwin, A., & Vine, E. (2011). Research methods and design in psychology. Exeter: Learning Matters. Steven, S. (1993). Classic Studies in Abnormal Psychology. New York: Lea and Blanchard. Vilen, V. (2011). Panorama of Psychology. New York: Marcel Dekker. Read More