Today, after hitting the snooze button many times, I finally awoke. Even though I was awake, I decided not to get up yet but to lie in my bed until my alarm went off again. However, when my alarm did go off again, a strange thing happened: I wanted to sleep, even though seconds before I had felt wide awake. Fondly remembering the psychology exam I had in a couple of days, I started to wonder if my alarm clock was classically conditioning me. When I wake up I always want to sleep more. This is an example of an uncontrolled stimulus leading to an uncontrolled response; waking up (UCS) naturally leads to wanting to sleep (UCR.) Everyday I wake up to my alarm clock beeping, meaning the UCS of waking up is being paired with my alarm clock going off day after day. This situation is very similar to Pavlov's dogs, which would listen to a metronome ticking before being served meat that caused them to salivate naturally. Although in my case my alarm clock going off is the metronome ticking and waking up naturally leads me to sleep. Therefore, my alarm clock going off is a controlled stimulus, as it was originally neutral but is now being paired with waking up. In Pavlov's experiments the dogs began to drool just from hearing the metronome tick, and I believe the same has happened to my alarm clock and me: when I hear my alarm beep, I have a desire to sleep. My waking up has lead to the conditioning of my alarm clock beeping (CS) being paired with waking up (UCS) which naturally leads to a desire to sleep (UCR) which now leads to the desire to sleep (CR) when hearing my alarm goes off. This is a rather undesirable (wanting to sleep when I hear my alarm beep is not exactly what I want...) but real life example of classical conditioning.
bonni029: October 2011 Archives
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." --Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act (AKA Title IX)
In 2006 the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, or as it is more commonly known by, Title IX, was amended to more easily allow public gender separated classrooms and schools. Recently, there has been growing resurgence of classrooms and schools being single sex. Professionals and political groups lie on both sides of this highly debated resurgence. Each side demonstrates strong reasons either for single-sex education or co-education, however the studies conducted in this field of education are not very convincing for either side.
Advocates of single-sex education display that gender separated education allows gender specific teaching, like providing the extra moral encouragement needed to ensure girls learn math at the same rate as boys. Gender segregated education also capitalizes on brain and developmental differences between genders, such as the more rapid development of the occipital lobe and language areas of the brain in girls. Single-sex education advocates also point to studies which show that gender separated schools lessen gender roles, as boys in single-sex schools are more likely to be involved in nontraditional gender role activities. Finally, proponents argue that single-sex education removes the complications that typically arise between members of the opposite sex during this time, such as the desire to impress the other gender.
Co-education proponents point to studies that have shown that single-sex education leads to greater gender discrimination in students as differences in boys and girls are exaggerated; for instance when boys are taught using techniques that encourage aggressiveness while girls are taught using techniques which promote passivity. Advocates also list studies that show that coeducation reduces gender roles by encouraging more blending between genders. Proponents claim that co-education teaches students how to interact with the opposite sex, an important skill for later life that single-sex education does not develop. Advocates of co-education also prove that separate resources for girls and boys are rarely equal, an observation that was also proven in other circumstances.
The Department of Education has not moved to all single-sex education but is letting it become more popular because there is little evidence for which works better. The primary fault of studies on gender separated classrooms and co-education is that variables are not held constant in studies. For instance, when schools switch from co-educational to gender separated, they often change many other teaching approaches at the same time. Another way in which variables are not held constant is that most studies of single-sex education occur in private schools, which already have an advantage over public schools in resources. However, both sides of the debate agree that education is not one size fits all and each child requires unique attention. This error in the scientific method of the studies conducted in this field of education must be corrected before any further decisions can be made regarding this aspect of schooling.
People often accuse advertising firms of using subliminal messaging to persuade customers to unconsciously associate a product with a pleasurable experience or activity, such as intercourse. The above advertisement is considered a "classic" subliminal message. At first the ad seems to be nothing more than a traditional drawing of a woman and an ambiguous slogan. However, if the image is flipped upside down, one can see the image of a woman masturbating.
It is believed that this ad creates a strong desire to choose this flooring company because, unknowingly, the viewer associates the company with sex. Most people claim this advertisement strategy uses subliminal messaging to persuade people without their knowledge. This extraordinary claim, which would surely have huge affects on society, must be supported by extraordinary evidence. However, the extensive evidence that exists proves this claim to be wrong.
Subliminal perception is the processing of sensory information that occurs below the limen, the threshold of conscious awareness. This is done by flashing an image very quickly and then following it with a mask to block mental processing of the image. Evidence has proven that subliminal perception can affect a subject's thoughts, behaviors, and emotions. However, studies of subliminal persuasion, using subliminal perception to influence one's choices (also known as subliminal messaging,) show that subliminal perception has very little power to persuade a person's decision. This is because even though the brain identifies the subliminal message, it does not participate in much, if any, processing of what that stimulus means. As a result, subliminal persuasion cannot produce large-scale, enduring changes in attitudes or decisions (Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, & Woolf, 2011).
Furthermore, by definition, a still image advertisement cannot contain subliminal messages, as the stimuli can be consciously acknowledged. The ineffective results of subliminal persuasion and the fact that still images cannot contain subliminal stimuli show that these suggestive advertisements, such as those below, do not affect buyers' decisions. So, even though these advertisements may be considered inappropriate, they cannot be considered subliminal messages and do not affect consumers.