Answered: Explain what the procedure is, what are…

Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)

5th Edition

ISBN:9780134477961

Author:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White

Publisher:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White

Chapter1: The Science Of Psychology

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1TY

See similar textbooks

Related questions

Question

Explain what the procedure is, what are the independent and dependent variables ? What experimental research did they use ?

Transcribed Image Text:10:40 control or regulate their naturally occurring thoughts and feelings (cf. Shafir et al., 2018). Following this part, Neural Self-Regulation of Social-Media Temptations 1 Mental Logout- Be... 1532 200 ms + G Distraction + 250 ms Event-related potential (ERP) recording and analysis Dashboard et al., 2018). The average percentage of correct responses was very high (91.66 %, SE 4.65%). Second, during breaks between experimental blocks, the experimenter asked participants to give examples of how they imple- mented the instructions in the two conditions and cor- rected them as needed. Third, during the experiment, we videotaped and watched participants' faces to make sure they were concentrating on the task. Finally, at the completion of the experimental trials, eight addi- tional trials (four for each of the two instructions) were followed by a screen that asked participants to write down how they implemented the required instruction. A judge who was blind to participants' instructions. coded each sentence as attentional distraction or temp- tation. The level of accuracy was very high (96.5%), indicative of adequate implementation of the instruc- tions (for more information, see Table $1 in the Supple- mental Material). Time to Blink 700 ms EEGS were recorded using an Active Two EEG recording system (Biosemi, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Data 200 ms Time exceeding 100 µV from CDA electrodes (P7, P8, Po7, Po8, Po3, and Po4). Following LPP analysis conventions (e.g., Shafir et al., 2018), we excluded from the aver- aged ERP waveforms any activity exceeding 80 µV from oool Calendar D were followed by a screen asking participants to report which instruction they had just implemented (Shafir Fig. 1. Example trial from the electroencephalogram task. At the start of each trial, participants saw a fixation cross, followed by an instruction indicating the trial type (attentional distraction, as shown here, or temptation). Subsequent arrow cues indicated which side of the screen the participant should attend. Afterward, two Facebook stimuli appeared (one on each side of the screen), and participants tried to distract themselves or watched the screen, depending on condition. Following stimuli offset, participants were asked to rate their current desire to use their own Facebook profile. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were locked to the onset of the Facebook stimuli. The two ERPs of interest were the contralateral delay activity (CDA) and late positive potential (LPP). 300-500 ms 2,500 ms CDA LPP ..5Gº Desire Rating (1-5) + Until Response To Do were collected using 6-4 scalp electrodes at locations of the extended 10-20 system and two free electrodes placed on the left and right mastoids. Electrooculo- grams (EOGs) were recorded using electrodes placed 1 cm to the left and right of the external canthi to detect horizontal eye movements and an electrode under the left eye to detect blinks and vertical eye movements. The single-ended voltage was recorded between each electrode site and the common-mode-sense (CMS) elec- trode and driven-right-leg (DRL) electrode. Data were digitized at 256 Hz, and off-line signal processing and analysis were conducted using the EEGLAB Toolbox (Version 13.5.4b; Delorme & Makeig, 2004), the ERPLAB Toolbox (Version 7.0.0; Lopez-Calderon & Luck, 2014), and custom MATLAB scripts (The MathWorks, Natick, MA). The average of the left and right mastoids served as references for all electrodes. Artifact detection was performed using a peak-to-peak analysis based on a sliding window 200 ms wide with a step of 100 ms. 1531 Following CDA-analysis conventions (e.g., Balaban & Luria, 2015; Sternberg et al., 2018), we excluded trials from the averaged ERP waveforms that included any activity exceeding 80 µV from the EOG electrodes because of ocular artifacts and trials containing activity Notifications distraction) as a within-participants independent vari- able. Confirming our predictions, results indicated that the attentional-distraction condition (M 2.02, SD = 0.63) efficiently reduced the desire to use Facebook 7 Sternberg et al. Inbox 7

Transcribed Image Text:10:40 sures used in the study (additional background informa- tion collected for pilot purposes is described in the Supplemental Material available online). All experimen- tal procedures were approved by the institutional review board of Tel Aviv University and were performed in accordance with the approved guidelines. 1530 1 Mental Logout- Be... changing their Facebook password (cf. Sternberg et al., 2018, 2020). This procedure was followed to enhance the value and saliency of Facebook stimuli, and it guar- anteed that participants would not use Facebook imme- diately prior to or immediately following the main EEG experiment. In general, deprivation procedures are well-es Il-established in animal and human studies across many fields (e.g., Grimm et al., 2001), including Face- book usage (Sternberg et al., 2018, 2020). Importantly, Sternberg et al. (2018) showed that this deprivation procedure does not bias naturally occurring social- network usage, as revealed by finding a significant medium-size positive correlation between deprived Facebook usage time in the laboratory and nondeprived Facebook usage time at home. In the main experiment, following EEG setup, we explained to participants that during the task, they would view well-recognized social-media-related images under two conditions: (a) a temptation condition that involved naturally watching social-media stimuli and allowing social-media-related thoughts and associated intentions to use social-media (e.g., freely thinking about one's Facebook profile, recent activities, and con- tent) and (b) an attentional-distraction condition that involved trying to control the influence of social-media stimuli and associated thoughts by directing attention to absorbing neutral thoughts unrelated to Facebook stimuli (i.e., thinking about geometric shapes or daily routine activities). The instructions for both conditions are considered the gold standard in self-regulation research; multiple prior studies show the efficacy of similar attentional-distraction manipulations in regulat- ing unpleasant emotions and appetitive desires (Shafir et al., 2018; for a review, see Sheppes, 2020). The experimenter taught the participants how to implement the instructions in both conditions (giving two examples for each condition). Then, during a four- trial learning phase, participants were asked to talk out loud about how they implemented each instruction. (two examples for each instruction), and they were corrected by the experimenter whenever they imple- mented the instructions in either condition incorrectly. Specifically, in the attentional-distraction condition, participants were corrected by the experimenter if their produced thoughts were not perceived as neutral for them, if these thoughts were somehow related to Face- book stimuli, or if these thoughts did not fit one of the two categories (geometric shapes or daily routine activi- ties). In the temptation condition, participants were corrected if their thoughts and feelings were not related to their personal Facebook usage or if they tried to control or regulate their naturally occurring thoughts and feelings (cf. Shafir et al., 2018). Following this part, Neural Self-Regulation of Social-Media Temptations G Dashboard 188 Calendar distance of approximately 70 cm. Procedure Twenty-four hours prior to the experiment, we deacti- vated participants' access to Facebook for 48 hr by B Sternberg et al. we explained to participants the general structure of each trial, followed by a 20-trial practice phase. ..5Gº The actual task consisted of 16 blocks that were separated by short breaks; each block contained 25 trials (yielding a total of 400 analyzed trials). Each trial (see Fig. 1) started with a fixation cross in the middle of the screen, followed by a screen containing the required instruction ("Distraction" for the attentional- distraction condition or "Watch" for the temptation con- dition). Then arrow cues pointing right or left (with an equal probability) indicated which side of the screen the participant should attend. This screen was followed by the presentation of two Facebook stimuli (randomly selected with equal probability to appear in each of the two experimental conditions), one on each side of the screen. The bilateral presentation of Facebook stimuli is required for CDA analysis (see CDA Analysis section below; for a review, see Luria et al., 2016). During the presentation of Facebook stimuli, participants imple- mented the required instruction ("watch" social-media content or "distract" oneself from social-media content). Following stimuli offset, participants were asked to rate their current desire to use their own Facebook profile on a scale ranging from 1 (not feeling a desire at all) to 5 (feeling extreme desire). Following standard procedures in CDA experiments that are intended to minimize perceptual differences. (e.g., Balaban & Luria, 2015; Luria et al., 2016), we instructed participants to maintain their gaze at the center of the screen during the presentation of Face- book stimuli. Trials that included eye movements were excluded from analyses. Participants were taught to blink in two defined points prior to and following stim- uli presentation. Importantly, the fact that both experimental condi- tions used the same stimuli and that trials with eye movements were excluded preclude low-level percep- tual alternative interpretations for the observed differ- ences between the temptation and attentional-distraction conditions. Specifically, by excluding trials with eye movements, we ruled out the possibility that people used attentional-deployment strategies that entailed bottom-up processes (e.g., closing their eyes or divert- ing their gaze) rather than the instructed top-down processes (e.g., thinking about shapes or daily neutral activities while maintaining their gaze at the center) to regulate their emotions (for a discussion, see van Reekum et al., 2007). To Do Several measures were used to ensure that partici- pants concentrated during the task and correctly fol- lowed instructions. First, 60 randomly chosen trials were followed by a screen asking participants to report which instruction they had just implemented (Shafir 7 C Notifications 1531 Inbox

Expert Solution