Casey et al (2011)
- Created by: EmilyHolt
- Created on: 04-03-16 19:18
View mindmap
- Casey et al (2011)
- Results
- Experiment 1
- No significant differences between high and low delayers in terms of reaction times.
- No significant differences on Go trials. 99.8% correct on cool and 99.5% correct on hot tasks.
- Both groups made mistakes on NoGo trials. False alarms rate - 9.96% on cool task. 12.2% on hot task.
- Low Delayers made more errors on hot tasks. Largely errors on happy face trials.
- Both groups made mistakes on NoGo trials. False alarms rate - 9.96% on cool task. 12.2% on hot task.
- No significant differences on Go trials. 99.8% correct on cool and 99.5% correct on hot tasks.
- No significant differences between high and low delayers in terms of reaction times.
- Experiment 2.
- No significant differences between High and Low delayers on terms of reaction times.
- Both groups highly accurate on Go trials.
- Low delayers more false alarms on NoGo trials (14.5%)
- Low delayers reduced activity in the right inferior frontal cortex on NoGo trials.
- Low delayers higher activity in ventral striatum - more with happy face stimulus for NoGo trials.
- Low delayers reduced activity in the right inferior frontal cortex on NoGo trials.
- Low delayers more false alarms on NoGo trials (14.5%)
- Both groups highly accurate on Go trials.
- No significant differences between High and Low delayers on terms of reaction times.
- Experiment 1
- Participants
- 565 participants aged 4 - Marshmellow Test.
- 1993, 155 of the original (now in twenties) - Questionnaire on self control.
- 2003, 135 of the second group (now in thirties) - Follow up self control questionnaire.
- 117 chosen to take part (either consistent high or low delayers).
- 59 agreed to take part.
- 117 chosen to take part (either consistent high or low delayers).
- 2003, 135 of the second group (now in thirties) - Follow up self control questionnaire.
- 1993, 155 of the original (now in twenties) - Questionnaire on self control.
- 565 participants aged 4 - Marshmellow Test.
- Conclutions
- Low Delayers when aged 4 - difficulty supressing responses to happy faces when adults.
- This suggests low self control consistent in an individual.
- Also, resisting temptation varies by context (more tempting choice 'hot' stimulus.
- ability to dleay gratifiiction depends on cognitive control and the compelling stimulus.
- Also, resisting temptation varies by context (more tempting choice 'hot' stimulus.
- This suggests low self control consistent in an individual.
- Evidence that there are two neurocognitiv systems that enable self control.
- Evidence for effects from Ventral Striatum and Inferior Frontal Gyrus.
- Low Delayers when aged 4 - difficulty supressing responses to happy faces when adults.
- Evaluation
- Strengths.
- Strictly controlled conditions = highly replicable.
- Longitudinal study = more in depth valid data on participants.
- Quantitative data = statistics and graphs which are easily compared.
- Longitudinal study = more in depth valid data on participants.
- Strictly controlled conditions = highly replicable.
- Weaknesses.
- Large sample = Attrition more likely to occur. Less generalisable as participants who drop out may have similar characteristics.
- Quasi experiments = less control over participant variables as IV naturally occuring.
- Tests and fMRI = lacks ecological validity as not real life situations.
- Quasi experiments = less control over participant variables as IV naturally occuring.
- Large sample = Attrition more likely to occur. Less generalisable as participants who drop out may have similar characteristics.
- Strengths.
- Aim
- To see if the ability to delay gratification or not was a consistent personality trait.
- whether it was a situational behaviour
- whether it was a dispositional behaviour
- To see if the ability to delay gratification or not was a consistent personality trait.
- Method
- Longitudinal study over 40 years.
- two quasi experiments. IV in both was whether participants were HIGH delayers or LOW delayers.
- experiment 1.
- performance on Go/No Go task. Reaction times and accuracy measured.
- tested using laptops at their homes.
- Shown target photograph of a face. Shown another photograph on each trial - if photograph matched the target they pressed a button. (GO)
- If trial photograph did not match target they had to RESIST and not press a button. (NO GO)
- Each face shown for 500 milliseconds - 1 second interval between photos.
- 160 trials in total - 120 GO/ 40 NO GO.
- Two versions were completed by all - 'hot' when facial expressions were shown. 'cool' when the faces were neutral.
- 160 trials in total - 120 GO/ 40 NO GO.
- Each face shown for 500 milliseconds - 1 second interval between photos.
- If trial photograph did not match target they had to RESIST and not press a button. (NO GO)
- Shown target photograph of a face. Shown another photograph on each trial - if photograph matched the target they pressed a button. (GO)
- tested using laptops at their homes.
- performance on Go/No Go task. Reaction times and accuracy measured.
- experiment 2.
- 27 of 59 in exp, 1 agreed to take part.
- Completed 'hot' version of Go/No Go test.
- Photo shown for 500 milliseconds, mean interval 5.2 seconds.
- Participants told to stare at crosshair on screen during intervals for fMRI scanner.
- 48 trials per run (35 GO/ 13 NOGO). two runs - happy stimulus and fearful stimulus.
- Participants told to stare at crosshair on screen during intervals for fMRI scanner.
- Photo shown for 500 milliseconds, mean interval 5.2 seconds.
- Completed 'hot' version of Go/No Go test.
- 27 of 59 in exp, 1 agreed to take part.
- experiment 1.
- two quasi experiments. IV in both was whether participants were HIGH delayers or LOW delayers.
- Longitudinal study over 40 years.
- Results
Comments
No comments have yet been made