BPS Psych4Students South Conference

Watford Colloseum
- where the magic happened

In December, I went to the Pysch 4 Students Conference held by the BPS. I hoped to gain an insight in what it was like to go to lectures and meet some young southern psychologists like myself!
The day consisted of:

1) Paul Gardner, the Principal Fellow at St Andrews' School of Psychology.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~plg/index.html

A very amusing man, and a perfect start to the day. Having applied to St Andrews, I was very excited to have the priviledge to see what the teaching at the University could have to offer! He wasn't ashamed to get us teenagers laughing when he sang a romantic love song at the top of his voice... very cheesy but made the point perfectly!

He spoke of proximial explanations of love such as neuroscience and social psychology and ultimate explanations which are evolutionary and anthrolopical.

Attraction is built on proximity, interpersonal rewards such as wit, charm and similiarity (as birds flock together) and physical attractiveness (same level of physical attraction get together).

He said that love does not exist - perhaps not a popular idea among the teenagers in the audience! It's all hormones really! Oxytocin in females and vasopressin in males.

What actually makes us attractive? - Symmetical faces which prove that the individual has overcome pathogens and mutations. Symmetry can indicate testostorone levels. This is similiar to peacocks which overcome handicap and therefore thrive. Men use their testostone to demonstrate their immunocompetence such as eyebrow ridges, full lips and cheekbones (which indicate that they can raise offspring). Oestrogen is what produces a female face. Studies show that a masculine face is only attractive when a woman is ovulating and is reduces honesty and commitment. Women who rated themselves attractive prefered masculine symmetrical faces (Little et al 2001)

Rikowski and Grammer did a study on Olfaction in 1999
The study showed that there is a correlation between female attractiveness and sexinss and body odour, a genetic distinctiveness.

The gene MHC has the allele combinations that may be better at fighting off pathogens. Females recognise and prefer men with MHC, and therefore have a dependent immune system according to Wedekind et all (1995)

A funny fact of the lecture to take away - if you type in Bikini Tools into google you get this: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-19/health/women.bikinis.objects_1_bikini-strip-clubs-sexism?_s=PM:HEALTH The study showed that the same parts of the brain light up on fMRI scans when looking up power tools!

He spoke about Love and Attraction.


2) Alison Lee, Lecturer at Bath Spa University.
https://applications.bathspa.ac.uk/staff-profiles/profile.asp?user=academic%5Cleea1

Who spoke about Neuropsychology.

I have a little bit of background on what this lecturer had to say having read Sacks' 'The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat'.
This Psychologist was particularly interested in vision and Parkinsons' Disease. A bit of background on Parkinsons:
It is a movement disorder that causes tremours. It changes the posture, the way they move and the speech of the sufferer. Often it can lead to depression. Unfortunately, this disease cannot be treated yet.
Each side of the brain has characteristic behaviour.
Here is quote from a person with Parkinson's about a simple everday activity of walking through a door:

'Every door is a bit of a lottery, I'm never sure it I'll fit through'.

Some of her research consisted of 'The Doorway Experiment' wherebys he asked how wide the door was. Normal people tend to pick a door that is 30% wider that their shoulders, however, those with Parkinson's tend to pick a door that is double this, 60% wider than themselves. Those that were healthy tend to pick a door only 18% wider than themselves.

Another test is 'The Line Bisection Test'. Healthy people were able to find the cnetre of line without any problems. However, there was naturally a slight small differentiation called Psychudongleft (My handwriting isn't brilliant on my notes) to the left for everybody.
Those who were unhealthy, showed signed of unlateral spatial neglect. When they were told to draw a house, a face or a daisy, they were only able to draw half of the picture.

This woman's motivation to study Psychology was to see why people couldn't do things, such as a woman who could not get through their gateposts and was too embrassed to tell anybody about it. This is an example of being about to let an individual lead a better life.


3) Rob Yeung, Corporate Psychologist at the consultanty Talentspace.

http://robyeung.com/

It's worth noting some of the books that he has written, incase anybody wants to read further: "I is for Influence". He is also a regular 'twitterer': http://twitter.com/robyeung

He stressed the importance of empathy for successful people - those who have empathy are not necessarily more successful but it definately ensures that both walk off happy.
He spoke of "The Critical Incident Technique" which focuses on 'awe' and 'cherish'.  Where for awe, he spoke of the Duncher Candle Conundrum, which expressed how being creative in business is essential. Research has showed that those who have travelled abroad, are more successful as they've been exposed to different customs and cultures. For cherish, he stated that you do better when you consider others. He made us all do a little test, to see is we subconsciously think of others or not! We had to draw an 'E' on our forehead, after this, we were asked if it was drawn so we could see the E the right way round, of the audience! I am guilty that I wrote it from my persepective! Perhaps I am not built to be a business woman after all :(

4) Katy Slocombe, Department of Psychology at The University of York
http://www.york.ac.uk/psychology/staff/faculty/ks553/

Some of the people that I meant really enjoyed this woman, and was sold by her animal noises associated with chimps! She spoke about language having a very complex capacity which must have the intention to communicate with others, imitate sounds, and words have specific meaning (semantics), language is hierachically structured and rule-governed (syntax). He spoke of how difficult it is to see how language has evolved over the years as there is no fossile evidence. The main question that erose when she was speaking was: 'is language uniquely human?', in which she used a comparative approach to address. Are semantics uniquely human? Slacombe has done work with Vervet Monkeys in South Africa where different calls where used when the monkey saw a predator. There is also tone communication. But does the listener understand the differences in this tone?

A playback experiment was conducted to see the animals response. The first evidence was referential communication.

Problems with language evolution were identified:
Most work done on monkey species.
Monkey abilities may be a conclusion of convergent evolution.

13 basic calls were identified from the experiment such as the pant grunt, which maintains social hierachy. It is often used when greating a dominant by a subordinate.
There was also laughter, which was shocking for me, as I thought this was a human behaviuour... however, the laugh does not sound human at all! This is used when youngsters are playing.
There is also a rough grant which contains information about a food source. As the pitch gets lower, this means they like the food less. In this way they are able to label the food.

Who spoke about the Psychology of success and what makes certain people successful.

5) Peter Lovatt, University of Hertfordshire.
http://dancedrdance.com/default.aspx
^ he looks very different to the picture in the website! He was a very likeable man, a rags to riches type story regarding his education ending up studying a PhD at Cambridge. He claimed that he reliased that despite notbeing originally academic that he must be fairly clever in order to have the convegerent and divergent thinking demanded of learning all the complex dance moves and sequences. And he got us all dancing and laughing! Most hilarious for me, was the video he showed of people dancing in his lab, some very extravagant dancing to say the least! A very good end to a very enjoyable day!

From an educational point of view, my notes I made from when I was not dancing with him are that women can see in a night club by the way that men move, who had the more pre-natal testostorone. In a similiar, way, when women are ovulating they move their hips more, which is more attractive to men.
A wierd, yet interesting fact was that the relative size of our ears affect how we dance and indicate what our genetic make-up is like.

He spoke about the Psychology of Dance, Hormones and Thinking.

My reflections/opinions on 'Welcome To Your Brain - The Science of Jet Lag, Love and other curiosities of Life' by Sam Wang & Sandra Aamodt

As a great thinker and explorer of Psychology, I found great pleasure in reading this book with satisfies all of those little questions such as: why are some people 'morning people' and others 'night people'; why can't you tickle yourself?' and how does your mind know that a joke is funny?

I've always wondered why when somebody else yawns I suddenly have a compelling need to yawn myself even when I'm not bored or tired... at first I thought to myself that it might be social learning theory but, what if the person I am imitating the yawn from doesn't conform to the conventional model (similar , powerful and caregiving)? That's because it is not associated with SLT, it's because yawning serves a function in alertness as it allows large amounts of air and therefore blood into the system, the cortex ensures that yawns are 'contagious' in situations that require being alert. So actually, this is biologically not a bad thing at all... despite making us yawn and possibly offend others.

So why can't you tickle yourself, ey? I'm incredibly ticklish, yet I can't tickle myself. I'm pretty sure that it's not my fingers because I can tickle people successfully back. Here's why: your brain's why (in the cerebellum). Our brain's are able to predict the sensory consequences of movements. It's important that we know the consequence of a sensation as when I feel a tap on my shoulder, I would need to react differently to somebody punching me and starting to attack me than knocking into an inert object.

Also wondering why you're sticking to your diet, yet your friend eats everything in sight yet your friend eats everything in sight? Your brain changes your basal metabolic rate to keep your weight at it's preferred level. Leptin is a chemical that tells your brain how your fat levels are changing when your fat decreases leptin falls in the blood, telling your brain you need more food, this makes your hungry and gain weight. Likewise, we feel hungry at certain times because of ghrelin, a hormone that's released at mealtimes established by social cues and conventions.

Shockingly, reducing calorie intake could reduce the risk of cancer even. This has been postulated by studies on rodents who were found to live 50% longer on a low-calorie diet this is because insulin sensitivity declines with age, particularly with a high-calorie diet.

To conclude, I would recommend this book to anybody who has ever asked themselves questions about themselves or others to a Psychology fanatic. There is an article for everyone, even about cuttlefish that have personalities...

Reflections and Opinions on the 'Games People Play' - Eric Berne

This book, 'Games People Play - The Psychology of Human Relationships' quantifies the interactions of humans and explains many encounters that we have. For example, is provides an explanation to why we are often bemused by over-friendliness, when surely being friendly is a positive trait, and we should like them more, surely not less? The book makes reference to the exchanges of 'strokes'.

On first impressions, the book is very much non-fiction and adopts a type of text-book style, packed with lots of definitions. In this way it is quite difficult to read, but is undoubtably very insightful. However, as I read on, I liked the colloquial expressions for the games that people play e.g. 'If it wasn't for him' and 'look ma no hands'.
The book claims that we have an inner child, adult and parent in which in certain situations different personas are brought out. This makes me think of the phrases: 'let out your inner wild child' and makes me question how many idiomatic and colloquial phrases have other Psychologists used/proved as 'behaviour mechanisms'.

I will  briefly give details of some examples given in the book:

The characteristics of schizophrenia, exhibited by suffers is broken down into: 'initially playing a flexible role, lose, easy game of first-stage 'ain't it awful' and progress to an inflexible, tenacious, hard-third stage'.

A game labelled as 'corner' provides an alternative reason for the onset of a child's asthma. I, myself, have witnessed a similar situation to this whereby the parent has answered philosophically to a yes/no question presented by a child:
 'Little girl: 'Mummy, d'you love me?' Mother: 'What is love?'
This exchange results with no direct recourse, the little girl wants to talk about mummy but she talks about philosophy which the little girl is not equipped to handle. So, the little girl in response breathes hard until mummy apologizes.

Things I like about the book include the structure and the familiarity. Although the book adopts an unusual stance on the social interactions, it is very easy to relate still to each cliche's are expressed such as: 'I'm under stress, I get all shock up' and 'my misfortunes are better than yours'. I like the way Berne has formulated the structure of the chapters; he paints the social setting and then breaks them down into thesis, aim, roles, dynamics and gives examples to the social situation explained. This enables me to look on into the familiar social settings in simplified quantifiable terms.

My reflections on: Genie - Russ Rymer

After studying Genie's case as an example of a case study in my Psychology lessons, I felt that the syllabus did not sufficiently satisfy my interest and fascination in this rare case of deprivation and was very eager to start reading this book. I hope that this book will reveal for me whether or not Bowlby's idea of the critical period whereby this is the only period of time that babies are able to form strong relationships. Likewise, this spotlights the nature vs nurture debate in many fields, particularly perception and linguistics. In these debates, I like the philosophical spin. The debates often pose alternative questions such as instead of presenting the question: 'how do children learn', they would instead pose the question: 'How does language flower from a child?'

Also, Rymer explores further case studies which cast light on Genie's condition providing a broad scope of deprivation studies and language acquisition for me, to linguistics. An example of another case study is of a baby who was born at the age of two and managed to walk and talk within 3 days of being born. Once again, this triggered the empiricist/nature debate about language as the baby did not have sufficient external input.

I found it almost rewarding to see Genie develop and progress. I found it also very interesting to hear of her adopting a 'new language' techniques - her own little language. She has been nicknamed among researchers as 'The Great Abbreviator' because phrases like: 'Monday Curtiss come' would be condensed into one or two syllables: 'Munkuh'. In the same way, her drawings are part of her lexicon, used to express things that she cannot through conventional means of communication. Her alternative ways of communicating reinforces how important it is to communicate with others as she strives so much to.

However, this book does not only explore the psychology of Genie, but also exposes the psychology of professionals. I found it upsetting when the book revealed hints of researchers and linguists using Genie and keep her best interest, progress and welfare at heart.

Inevitably, the everlasting nature-nurture debate ended with the conclusion that it is a combination of both. It was suggested that even innate behaviours such as syntax, has to be developed by environmental means.

The idea of the physiology of the brain and localization of function is also expressed. Genie struggled to grasp the concept of grammar, the proposed theory was that she was using the wrong equipment. That a different area of her brain was communicating to overcome the deprivation and the affect on her language acquisition.

Educationally, I fount it invaluable to take my knowledge further and be able to explore how you would overcome the communication between each hemisphere. A methodology that is very different to that of Sperry's as there is the opposite issue as he had the corpus callosum severed to overcome the excessive firing in his brain from his severe case of epilepsy. The methodology consists of whispering in the right ear (which is heard by the left brain) whilst presenting another background noise to the left ear (which is heard by the right hand side of the brain) so that the left hand side of the brain does not hear the noise that the left hand side of the brain is being tested to hear and make sense of.

In addition to this, I got a first-hand account of the personal reflexivity required from a researcher in this controversial case study: "My own position - if I can psychoanalyse myself was not one of expectations but of hope. The sky was not high enough for my hopes, but my expectations were down to earth.'

I will draw my 'review' to an end of a quote about language acquisition:

When it comes to physical growth, no one asks why - why do our arms grow? Learning a new language is like learning to walk, a biological imperative timed to a certain point in development. It's not an emotional process.

Reflections on "An Angel at My Table" - Janet Frame

Following learning about the works of Rosenhan and how easy it is to misdiagnose someone as mentally ill, I found it an easy and logical choice to read this book which reflects on the life and travels of a writer, Janet Frame, who was misdiagnosed in New Zealand as Schizophrenic which cost her several years in asylums. She explores and described in great details her travels on a Literature grant and there is an underlying tone of the importance of how experience shapes us as people.

. 

Firstly, reading volume one, which in great detail, is an exploration of her childhood and schooling. Particularly interesting, I find is her reference to English Literature as a device to ascertain knowledge of a human behaviour:

I felt to know the winds of the world were blowing, to gain knowledge of human behaviour, of the human mind, I had only to study the world's poetry and fiction.

Frame finds means of Psychology in Literature, which for me, really spotlights how applicable to everyday life and fundamental Psychology is. Frame speaks of being 'overwhelmed with the flood of new information about the Mind, the Soul and the Young Delinquent, where I had only recently learned that there is such creature as The Child.' 

Particularly interesting to me (as very interested in dream research), is Frame's reference to the phallic quality of dreams & their significance. She spoke of T.S Elliot The Golden Bough, which she speaks highly of (but I'm yet to read myself). Similarly, she speaks of writing poems through her 'Freudian lens'. When thinking about how my subjects intertwine & in particular relate to Psychology, I'm quick to make the association to English literature. However, I usually think that Literature helps me to think about Psychology, I have not before appreciated that Psychology has a role in helping me in writing. So in this way, Frame has enabled me to appreciate Psychology from a different angle & through the eyes of an English student.

From a clinical psychology point of view, I was given an insight, from the eyes of a patient, how important it is to treat the patient as a human being. This was shown in Frame's reflections on being treated as if less of a person: 'When my sister's friends asked, 'how is she?' As if an archaeological find stood before them and they were applying with eyes, heart, mind, a 'carbon' test to name, date and place me - and if only I had a place! Frame invites us to see the thoughts of someone who is taken into an asylum and how people's tendency to make her "become assistant 3rd person or even personless" is demeaning and can do more harm than goo as she states: "3rd person people are often thrust into a passive mood". 

Seeing a Psychiatrist through the eyes of Frame as she expresses what qualities made her feel more at ease with them and have more respect with them, is something a found incredibly insightful and a useful lesson. She states: 'Dr Portion was a qualified Psychiatrist , he may have superimposed life upon psychiatry not psychiatry upon the life.' This highlights how important epistemological and personal reflexivity, not only in studies, but as a practicing clinician outside the laboratory as this can affect to what extent a patient will open up to you.
Frame described being diagnosed with Schizophrenia as: "as if I had emerged from a chrysalis, the natural human state, into another kind of creature, and even if there were parts of me that were familiar to human beings, my gradual deterioration would lead me further and further away..." Refreshingly, she spotlights the advantageous aspects of a mental illness in a professional career and it's contributions to imagination. She believes that being falsely diagnosed with Schizophrenia at the expense of 7 years in a mental institute draws attention to it as: "Ophelia's Syndrome" and how it "allows a writer explore varieties of otherwise unspoken feelings, thoughts and language". 

As the book comes to an end, she says: "the unalterable human composition that is the true bases of fiction...", which reminds me why I like to be avid reader as a Psychology student. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfMh-fRSH5E Here is the link to the trailer of the film that was made so that you can get a feel for the woman who felt by reading this book, with so much attention to detail, I know quite well.

We Need to Talk about Kevin - Lionel Shriver

This book is without doubt my favourite book that I have read. With many Psychology books I often find that, for me, there is either not enough fiction or non-fiction. However, this book has the perfect balance between the two... it is incredibly entertaining and despite being completely fiction is very realistic in the way the confessions of Kevin's mother unfold. I don't know quite how to talk about a book that left me speechless so firstly, I will briefly paraphrase about what the book is about...

This is an epistolary book of a woman/killers mother who writes a series of confessions to her husband about the way she treated their son and how she may be guilty in contributing to his fate, the murder which is referred ominously as 'Thursday'. Until the last chapter, I presumed that her husband was her ex husband, however as the novel unfolds, the 2 others in addition to the 7 classmates who were murdered as revealed to be her daughter and Franklin, her husband who she writes to. I found this incredibly moving and felt as if I had been given direct insight into the foundations of a relationship. The readers attention is constantly held and is an all-round incredibly enthralling read!

A simplified model of SLT, was Kevin
and his character to blame and Eva
as a mother innocent of negligence?
Or did Eva and the previous school
murderers act as a model as they are
seen as powerful, of similar age and in
Eva's case, a care-giver?

On a Psychological level, this book really brings to life the importance of Social Learning Theory and the adverse effects this can have on a child's development. Was Eva, as a powerful, care-giver acting as a model to Kevin who imitating her violent behaviour and hatred? Could the way that people were so interested in the other school murders being committed being shown on the TV of acted as vicarious reinforcement for Kevin? However, Eva (the writer) writes in a fashion that states that Kevin had always been mischievous and found no pleasure in any activities expect for archery and computer viruses. This brings up the ever controversial nature-vs-nurture event. Was Kevin born to kill or did the treatment of his mother lead him to? Or even did Franklin's love lead him to fight back because he could not deal with the mundane attention given by his father? It is hard to tell. Was Eva to blame for being a negligent parent or did she just go a step too far in dealing with the innately 'evil' Kevin? Or was Kevin an innocent victim of the wrong upbringing?

My favourite moment in the book in particular is the insight into a killers mind, although at the end he confesses to his mother he is currently unsure why he even did it. But at first, he stated, to paraphrase, that in life you are either the watchee or the watcher. Boredom in itself and perfection in a world where he could not see a place for himself led him to commit this terrible crime. He states that everybody is watching him on TV, if there weren't cases like him nobody would have anything to watch on the news and no investigators would have a job. He takes a pride in the crime as the people making the documentaries try to make money of his character which they are dependent on.
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3341655065/ Although I have not managed to what the film myself, the trailer features my favourite part as in the background we can hear Kevin's complaints of how mundane life is...

I would strongly recommend this book to anybody who has ever questioned humanity, criminals actions, the constructs of the  family and the development of a child in to what extent we are fated by the chains of experiences we are exposed to at a young age at a time where morals are built.

The questions which arose from this book on nature and nurture led me to go on to read Genie, a non-fictional extraordinary case...

Twitter stalking...

I was just looking at some twitter accounts and on Mo Constandi's, I found a rather interesting link to an article on Bionic Glasses: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/science_blog/110705.html 

Jeremy Dean has to have the most interesting twitter account for me and will without a doubt be visiting this a lot in the future! I found this really appealing as music is a central part of my life. Likewise, at a conference, I attended a lecture from a Music Psychologist who explained how cortical level of arousal levels and music taste have a correlation. This link explores WHY we like music: http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/05/the-all-time-top-six-reasons-we-love-music.php I really agree with the 6 reasons and support Lonsdale and North (2010)'s research as whether I am happy or sad, music can concrete and secure a mood or alter it completely. And I am guilty as charged that I will judge someone to an extent by their music taste.

Another thought-provoking article from Jeremy Dean: http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/06/consumer-psychology.php this time on consumer behaviour, a very strong interest of mine.

SPOLIT FOR CHOICE?

I am very glad to see 'too much choice' on the list! I often find when I am in the sales or a very large department store/bluewater, I turn my nose up at a dress which when I see the following week in a smaller shop, I absolutely love! I definately feel that ASOS should take this on board on their website. Their large selection of thousands of clothing in small pictures often puts me off. In this way, I really like ZARA's website and their set up which has a very nice balance between selection, quality and effectiveness.

This is a prime example of why I love Psychology - when you can truly relate to a study and identify truth in them from your own life. It is because of this that I believe Psychology is a innovative scientific discipline applicable to everyday life. I truly cannot see how anybody cannot find interest in aspects of the subject.