Question

ghostbuster esp study film

First, what was experimentally wrong with the Ghostbusters ESP study (video link) at the end of your chapter one slideshow, and how could it be improved to meet scientific standards? Second, if you were doing this study, what would be your hypothesis, and what would your independent and dependent variables be (make sure to list and label them as IVs and DVs)? Be specific here! (“My independent variable would be …; My dependent variable would be …). Third, how would you make it an experimental (rather than correlational) study (it might help to be specific here as well and define the two types of studies in your response)? Finally, what are some of the ethical problems with this study?

Answer 1

1. Negative reinforcement refers to the removal of stimuli so that a behavior’s probability would be increased for being repeated in the future. This is also in the form of avoidance behavior. In this case, Dr Venkman is referring to negative reinforcement, but his real intentions are to produce pain through an aversive stimuli, electric shock. This actually is positive reinforcement, where a stimuli is added.

2. In this case, the dependent variable is the administration of electric shock

The independent variable is the answer provided by the male student.

3. The experiment is ethically dubious. The researcher is clearly biased towards Jennifer, and is giving or declaring her answers as correct even though they aren’t to gain her attention. On the other hand, the male student continues to receive shocks even after giving correct answers.

In order to make it experimental, the researcher should be noting the answers on a sheet of paper, or without looking at the subjects, in a double bind manner, such that there could be no bias in the experiment.