This assignment is fixated upon the study of psychological behavior of human body that further focus on the question that is kept in spot light states: can visual body judgement be affected either impaired or enhanced by distractors bodies. This focus on one basic research question that states that whether the visual judgements of a human body are impaired or enhanced in the presence of additional bodies independent variable? This assignment further states an introduction in which factors are introduced briefly that might affect the stated question under observation. Further it includes a detailed discussion about the two hypotheses to be generated and how they are related to the above mentioned statement, the hypotheses will be stated and described with strong for these further a study is implemented that includes experimentation, methods used and lastly concluding with results. The study is made with evidence based material and is provided with strong hypothetical descriptions, the assignment includes all required steps to be kept in focus while implementing this study.
This assignment is to focus on one basic research question that states that whether the visual judgements of a human body are impaired or enhanced in the presence of additional bodies independent variable. To build a hypothesis against this very question we are required to know about the certain factors being targeted for the study. This includes knowledge about human body dependent variables and factors as well as independent variables. And how they might or might not affect the human body. These factors will lead to the development of our hypothesis that this assignment requires two hypothesis that we will deduce.
A dependent human body variable is the one that is measured while experimentation that can be the treatment of a person and what is affected while that experiment is being performed. If human body is put under subject then there will come out a long list of dependent variables keeping in view the condition of the human body that needs to be put under observation and treated. This type of human body variable is the one that hinges on their many human body factors to perform its functionality (Kurogochi & Mori & Osumi, 2015). An example of a dependent human body variable is heart rate.
Next comes the knowledge of independent human body variable and factors. It is the one that remains unaffected in a particular condition under some specific circumstances. An independent human body factor varies according to the conditions met, a human body variable can be independent in one scenario and can become dependent in another scenario. Independent variable can work without the support of any other but relative to that particular condition met. an easy example of independent human body variable is stress levels considered parallel to the upper example; stress levels can increase heart rate but it is not possible the other way around.
Keeping in view one more thing that how a human body works to know if additional independent variables effect the performance and observation done over a human body. Our human body consists of many systems that effect each other and eventually our psychological self. The reactions and events occurring in these systems effect our overall performance and thus the biological factors are the most related to psychological factors (Ding & Yuan & Sun, 2020). The various factors dependent and independent human body variable involved in these system effect our psychological behavior resulting in different outcomes varying from person to person as biological compositions vary from human to human.
For this study we need to have a subject under observation and thus further is explained the participants involved and how they behaved towards the implemented treatment that consisted of various conditions and situations.
These some factors include dependent and independent human body variables and will be most prominent factors in here then followed by the two hypothesis that will be deduced and discussed further to state whether the proposed question can be answered and in what ways and with what factors. This assignment is engrossed upon the findings about psychological behavior of human form that additionally focuses on the query that is reserved as whether visual body judgement be affected either impaired or enhanced by distractors bodies. This focus on one basic research question that states that whether the visual judgements of a human body are impaired or enhanced in the presence of additional bodies independent variable? This assignment further states an introduction in which factors are introduced briefly that might affect the stated question under observation. Followed a whole section of discussion that provides with strong and effective reasons and theories to support the two hypotheses we will be concluding and stating with supporting knowledge. the hypotheses will be specified and labeled with robust references for these further a study is applied that further encapsulates experimentation, methods used with in and lastly concluding with results that are found as an outcome of the study.
The discussion will be done on the same question that states whether the visual judgement of a human body is impaired or enhanced in the presence of additional bodies independent variable? An observer’s manipulation visual judgement of human body is not effected by independent human body factors. For these two very clear hypotheses can be generated one that states that body categorization performance will be poorer when presented with in close proximity of distractor of independent human body variables (Schultz & He & Whitaker, 2015). While the other hypothesis states that observer cannot manipulate results judging over the independent human body variables. This states very two different hypothesis and we will discuss whether these are possible and under what circumstances and conditions.
The prognostic association between numerous psychological catalogues of body classification presentation and effect of sovereign human body variables. These variables might include body mass index, fat percentage, and fat free mass indexes and their measurements and how their disparity effects the person’s psychological behavior that the observer will deduce (McClellan & Coleman & Crary, 2018). PSE is not as subtle in envisaging the body categorization performance and any complaints that might be encountered to the human body and in result effecting the psychological behavior. At the same time as the body categorization task bids new perceptions into the way body images may be treated by males with different levels of body dissatisfaction, the VBSM and the conservative self-report measures are likely to be clinically more efficient at gauging these.
In order to lecture some boundaries and to examine whether we can attain the obligatory results, the current study pursues to apply a discrepancy of Fechner’s method (MOCS) that is a psychological technique that overwhelms some of the methodological inadequacies of figural rating scales (Wei & Wang & Cui, 2016). The patients can be treated in many ways and each group working on such patients have their certain specific set of rules and regulations to go through. After the data and information is acquired from those experimentations, psychometric functions are befitted accordingly, the experimenter or the one that is to presume visual judgements can conclude not only the level of the distractor variable at which perceptual performance changes from one category to the other but also the accuracy with which individuals and participants as a subject is able to differentiate what factors are affecting what results and in what dimension with improved accuracy indexed by approximations of embattled study and factors. For body categorization task, PSE designates the equal of the body variable at which an individual’s reports vary accordingly.
The second hypothesis we came up with is An observer’s manipulation visual judgement of human body is not effected by independent human body factors. The visual judgement or observation study comprises the obligation of treatments may be yonder the switch of the observer for a couple many reasons. A randomized experimentation would disrupt ethical morals. The observer may simply nonexistence the vital inspiration and information about the complaint being met. The randomized experiment may end up being unfeasible. Visual judgement can never classify unplanned relationships because even though two variables are related both might be produced by a third unnoticed variable ( Han & Waddington & Adams, 2016). Since the laws of biology and psychology are assumed to be casual laws, observational and critical results are generally observed as less convincing than the results assimilated as a result of experimentation. These judgmental studies can however provide information on real implications and practices. And notice indications about the reimbursements and dangers of the use of practices in the general population. They can also ease in helping to verbalize hypotheses to be tested in further experimentations and provide part of the real community based data and information needed to project more educational realistic hospital trials. These further relate to confounding variables too that can be called a statistical model that relates with both dependent human body factors and independent or distractor human body variables. However, a more likely clarification is that the relationship between them is in a way where one leads to the need of the other automatically.
393 subjects participated in this experiment. Participants were undergraduate psychology students who participated as a part of their course. Neither sex nor age was recorded.
The experimental stimulus was administered via two sets of pre-recorded movies, which were accessed remotely via an online platform, and viewed using the participants’ own device. The specifics of such devices were not recorded, and could conceivably include desktop monitors, laptops, tablets or smartphones. The experiment presentation movie consisted of a sequence of 80 male target bodies, whose physique simulated either a very low muscle mass male body (16.5 kg/m2) or a very high muscle mass body (30 kg/m2).
On half of experimental trials target bodies were presented in isolation (Target Alone trials) and on the other half of trials target bodies were accompanied by eight adjacent Distractor bodies (Crowded trials). Distractor bodies all depicted an identical and intermediate muscle mass index of 22 kg/m2. Bodies were created using DAZStudio 4.9 Pro 3D modelling software. Each body image was set upon a transparent background square (85 x 128 pixels). A black background was used throughout the experiment. Each experimental trial included a small red elliptical fixation point (15 x 17 pixels) presented at the centre of the screen. At the beginning of each trial four blue placeholder triangles (28 x 26 pixels) accompanied the fixation point for 1 second. Two of these triangles were located 333 pixels to the left of the fixation point and two 333 pixels to the right. Two were presented 133 pixels above the screen’s horizontal midline, and two 133 pixels below it. Body stimuli, whether in Target Alone or Crowded conditions, were presented for 100 milliseconds per trial. Following each body stimulus, the following white text would appear: “That was trial [n], 0 = muscular, 1 = non-muscular”. Here [n] refers to the trial number associated with that trial.
Participants received instructions during class prior to running the experiment. Participants were free to run the experiment during the class or any time during the following week. No constraints were placed on the time of day, the device chosen, screen size, viewing distance nor the environment that they ought to participate. None of these details were recorded. Prior to running the experiment students were instructed to select one of the two stimulus movie sequences provided, a decision based on whether the participant’s student number ended in an odd or and even digit.
Upon beginning the allocated experiment movie, a series of screens appeared instructing the participant to maintain (i.e. not deviate) their gaze upon on the red fixation dot throughout each trial sequence. They were informed that on each trial the target object would appear either to the left or to the right of the fixation point and that they should judge whether the target body was ‘muscular’ or ‘non-muscular’, and that this judgment should be registered by writing a ‘1’ or an ‘0’ respectively on the sheet of paper, adjacent to the corresponding trial number (1-80). Once the experiment movie had finished presenting all 80 trials subjects were instructed to type their pen(cil) and paper responses into an Excel sheet, indicating which version of the experiment they used (odd or even) and then submit this sheet to an online repository.
Of the 393 data sets submitted to the online data repository, 106 contained formatting errors. Consequently, data from 287 separate participants were included for subsequent analysis.
Averaged across subjects the proportion of correct body categorizations was 0.79 (S.D. = 0.17) in the Target Alone condition and 0.54 (S.D. = 0.10) in the Crowded condition. These results are shown graphically in Figure 1. A one-tailed repeated-measured t-test was conducted to determine whether body categorization performance was better in the Target Alone condition than in the Crowded condition, t(286) = 24.55, p < .001. The results of this analysis indicate that we can be at least 99.9% confident that body categorization performance was poorer in the Crowded condition than in the Target Alone condition.
Ding, L., Yuan, L. M., Sun, Y., Zhang, X., Li, J., & Yan, Z. (2020). Rapid Assessment of Exercise State through Athlete’s Urine Using Temperature-Dependent NIRS Technology. Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry, 2020.
Han, J., Waddington, G., Adams, R., Anson, J., & Liu, Y. (2016). Assessing proprioception: a critical review of methods. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 5(1), 80-90.
Kurogochi, M., Mori, M., Osumi, K., Tojino, M., Sugawara, S. I., Takashima, S., ... & Matsuda, A. (2015). Glycoengineered monoclonal antibodies with homogeneous glycan (M3, G0, G2, and A2) using a chemoenzymatic approach have different affinities for FcγRIIIa and variable antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity activities. PloS one, 10(7), e0132848.
McClellan, G., Coleman, M., Crary, D., Thurman, A., & Thran, B. (2018). Human Dose–Response Data for Francisella tularensis and a Dose‐and Time‐Dependent Mathematical Model of Early‐Phase Fever Associated with Tularemia After Inhalation Exposure. Risk Analysis, 38(8), 1685-1700.
Schultz, M. D., He, Y., Whitaker, J. W., Hariharan, M., Mukamel, E. A., Leung, D., ... & Lin, S. (2015). Human body epigenome maps reveal noncanonical DNA methylation variation. Nature, 523(7559), 212-216.
Wei, Z., Wang, J., Cui, S., & Wang, Y. (2016). Determination of the flavours and marked ages of rice wines using a taste sensing system combined with the Weber–Fechner law and chemometric methods. Analytical Methods, 8(33), 6361-6371.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Psychology Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....