The Stroop Phenomenon Essays - Neuropsychology, Perception

The Stroop Phenomenon Presentation The stroop wonder is a method of estimating how programmed or deliberate some very much rehearsed assignments are and how we react in strife circumstances. This wonder likewise gauges singular differentiations, innovation and psychological adaptability. The two parts of intellectual improvement that are shown by the stroop task are naming reaction furthermore, checking reaction. At the point when two reactions contend or are in strife, the time required to settle on the right choice is reliant on speed and exactness. In the article Following The Time Course of Picture Word Processing, by M.C. Smith and L.E. Magee; these two analysts found that image naming was influenced by the nearness of incongruent words (Experiment 1). Likewise naming an image was quicker than when a consistent word was available. Along these lines pictures actuate the name code. Another investigation (Experiment 2) showed that memory for pictures and words, regardless of whether they were at first named or classified affected memory. Memory was better for words on the off chance that they have been ordered and for pictures in the event that they have been named. Analysis 3 indicated indistinguishable outcomes from the past two tests. The fourth investigation, with the presentation of less normal objects, subjects could name the words quicker than producing a class name for the words. Naming pictures are inclined to impedance when incongruent words are introduced all the while. Word naming isn't so a lot impacted by diverting pictures. Pictures and words vary in the measure of data to be sifted through, to get the right reaction. The plan of this trial is an inside subject examination as the number of decisions to be made in the wake of survey the improvement on the screen are same for everyone (2,3,4). Additionally the significance versus number decisions (same, extraordinary, clashing) are utilized by everybody. The reliant factors in this trial are normal precision (%) and normal time/reaction (msec). the autonomous variable is the arbitrary improvement which showed up on the screen, regardless of whether it was the equivalent, extraordinary or clashing. In this analyze we were indicated 2, 3, or 4 things on the screen in a randomized structure and needed to choose the correct number of things utilizing 2,3,4 on the console as fast and precisely as could be expected under the circumstances. In this trial, the stroop assignment will be illustrated. When there is no contention between the improvement and reaction to be picked, reactions will be brisk and exact. When there is a contention between the boost what's more, reaction to be made, obstruction will exist and reacting will be increasingly slow precise. Results and Discussion Figure 1 The normal precision in percent for subject 1, was useful for the 'same' condition. At that point they began to diminish when the improvement was 'extraordinary'. This score for subject 1 at the 'extraordinary' condition was the most reduced among every one of the 3 conditions. At the point when the upgrade was 'clashing', subject 1 was losing precision again as was not as high as in the 'same' condition. Subject 1 was less precise in the 'extraordinary' and 'clashing' circumstances. The normal exactness in percent for subject 2, was very predictable, being 100% in all conditions. So this subject had a higher exactness rate than subject 1. Figure 2 Corresponding to average time/reaction in milliseconds, subject 1 was snappier than subject 2. At that point condition where subject 1 eased back down the most was in the 'extraordinary' condition. In the 'clashing' condition, subject 1 sped up more than in some other condition. Subject 2 was very reliable in every one of the 3 conditions comparable to normal time/reaction, with the milliseconds being just 3 or 4 extraordinary from different conditions. For subject 2 the most noteworthy reacting rate was in the 'clashing' condition, trailed by 'same', at that point the 'extraordinary' condition. This shows in the 'clashing' condition, the subjects reaction rate expanded. In the 'unique' condition the reaction diminished. Too on the off chance that one subject has a higher precision rate than another subject, at that point the normal time/reaction will be lower. The stroop task exhibits that the naming reaction (same) is quicker than the reaction utilized while tallying (extraordinary) and that when 2 reactions strife (clashing), an opportunity to settle on a right choice increments. Since individuals discover the 'contention' condition troublesome, they will make more mistakes and set aside more effort to decide the right reaction. So the exactness and reaction rate diminishes in the 'contention' circumstance. The distinction in speed and exactness in the 3 conditions (same, unique, and clashing) was the consequence of the involvement in each explicit condition. The more practice with each condition, the littler the contrasts in speed and exactness among the three conditions. When there

How Food is Viewed in the American Culture Essay examples -- nutrition

A great many people wouldn’t deny that food is fundamental to regular daily existence, yet maybe it has more significance than basically sustaining our bodies. As indicated by Carole M. Counihan, a specialist of human studies, food is imperative to the point that society has developed standards with respect to its utilization. Counihan accentuates in her 1992 Anthropology Quarterly article, â€Å"Food Rules in the United States: Individualism, Control and Hierarchy,† that these principles fill in as the â€Å"means through which people develop reality† (Counihan, 1992, p. 55). Counihan advocates for the significance of considering food decides by clarifying that information about how food is seen in our way of life can complete three things: improve comprehension of different culture’s food rules, permit sustenance instruction projects to work with these principles, and uncover a part of society that keeps up our present separation framework, which has not been altogether analyzed at this point (Counihan, 1992). Through her investigation of food diaries kept by American understudies, Counihan contends that their adherence to food decides recommends that understudies firmly put stock in discretion and independence. Therefore, these convictions strengthen our present social progressions, explicitly classism, prejudice, and sexism. Counihan’s contention that our guidelines about food take into consideration the propagation of sexism is a convincing one that I particularly concur with. I have actually observed my closest companion plan her whole eating regimen and exercise routine dependent on what her beau thinks. In spite of the fact that this article was written in 1992, I accept the message it passes on will at present be relevant in years to come. Counihan’s contention is multifaceted: she investigates a way of thinking that undergrads adhere to specific guidelines about food that have been int... ... is significant. However, since we have done as such, it is significantly progressively significant that we find a way to change what's going on. That’s why the ongoing spotlight on being solid as opposed to thin and crusades like the Dove Beauty Campaign where ladies are urged to see the magnificence by they way they as of now are so momentous to changing what Americans esteem. Despite the fact that Counihan composed this article eighteen years back, it despite everything has applications today. I do scrutinize her examination techniques. Utilizing a little example of food diaries from understudies being educated to think regarding human sciences could slant results. I would be intrigued to see a bigger report done today, particularly with some advancement being made in the adjustment of America’s values. Works Cited Counihan, C. M. (1992). Food Rules in the United States: Individualism, Control, and Hierarchy. Human sciences Quarterly, 65(2), 55-66.

Applied Game Theory For Your Day-To-Day Business Operations

Applied Game Theory For Your Day-To-Day Business Operations Game theory has been one of those disciplines that have reached phenomenal status because it has introduced concepts and methodologies that are deemed by many to be “game-changers” (no pun intended). It first came about in the 1900s, and has been expounded on and progressed since then. However, there are still some questions and doubts on its applicability, especially in the real world and in real-life situations, particularly in daily business operations. © Shutterstock.com | ImageFlowIn this article, we will start with the general definition of 1) the game theory, and continue then with 2) the game theory in day-to-day business.THE GAME THEORYBut first, let us discuss what Game Theory is all about. It is essentially a discipline or a method of strategic thinking where the players will have to make decisions by looking from different perspectives, basically putting themselves in the shoes of the other players and anticipating their possible actions and reactions. The results of playing out these scenarios will be used to make decisions or choices.When used in the context of business, Game Theory is most often used by business managers to figure out what their collaborators and competitors are thinking or planning. It has become a very powerful tool for predicting the outcomes or results of interactions or transactions among a group of players or competitors, where the action of one will have direct effects or impact on the others, an d the others will react according to those actions.What are the elements that compose Game Theory? There are three basic components at play here:A set of players who are involved. In business, these often pertain to individual business managers and firms or companies.A set of strategies which are available for use by the players at specific points during the game. This also encompasses the rules of the game, which are set in order to specify the sequence of all possible moves and actions. The information that are instrumental in strategizing are also covered here.The outcomes for each possible set of strategies or actions, and the expected payoffs based on these outcomes. These payoffs are assumed to be known by all the parties or participating players.Strategizing through the use of Game Theory requires several assumptions to be made. These assumptions are not fool-proof, however, since there are many arguments that could be made against them.Assumption #1: All the players act and think rationally, making choices and performing actions that are in their self-interest. The weakness of this assumption lies on the fact that human nature does not often permit rational thinking, and humans tend to make decisions for reasons other than their own interests.Assumption #2: All the players act strategically, while taking into consideration the responses of their competitors to their actions. This is also not always the case, because there are other drivers to players’ decisions, not necessarily the actions of others. In fact, many business managers even do not make decisions within the strategic context.Assumption #3: The effectiveness of Game Theory is fully realized when all the players are fully aware of, and understand clearly, the payoffs â€" both the negative and positive ones â€" of their choices or actions. It is a fact that most players make decisions even without having all the information. Many even do not care to know the full story behind some actions or responses before deciding on a specific course of action themselves.Game Theory can also be performed in two ways: simultaneous games, where the players make their moves or actions at the same time, without waiting for information on what the other players have chosen or acted upon, and sequential games, where the moves of the players will depend on, and in response to, the previous action or choice of another player.THE GAME THEORY IN DAY-TO-DAY BUSINESSAnyone that plays a key role in high-level and strategic decision-making in an organization should definitely consider learning about, and applying, the Game Theory. They include, but are not limited to, executives, directors, and senior managers.The applicability of Game Theory may be in question by some pundits, but there is no denying the fact that even large and established businesses have openly discussed using Game Theory for their key strategic business decisions.The most common situations where Game Theory becomes most usef ul include:It is especially useful when it comes to analyzing first price sealed bid auctions. A first-price sealed bid auction is a type of auction where the bidders submit their bids â€" sealed and secured â€" and the highest bidder wins. What is analyzed are the behaviors of the bidders, and the factors that come into play when they make the decisions while preparing their bids. In this case, the bids are independent of each other, and are made by the bidders simultaneously.Bargaining activities. Game theory also comes into play when bargaining takes place between or among parties. Examples include negotiations between management and the workers’ union, as well as revenue-sharing negotiations.Product decisions. This is the quintessential area where businesses can “play games” or play out scenarios using the Game Theory. It is actually most frequently used by businesses in making decisions on whether to enter a market or to exit it. Businesses deciding whether to introduce a new product or not may also use a Game Theory.Transactions between Principal and Agent. Principal-Agent decisions can also apply the Game Theory when tackling compensation negotiations as well as incentives to suppliers and business partners.Supply Chain decisions. A huge bulk of the decisions made by businesses involves the supply chain, and some of the more common decisions made involve capacity management, make or buy, and build or outsource.Importance of Applying Game Theory in BusinessMaking business decisions is a daily event for managers. They are always faced with decisions on what to produce, what to procure, and what to sell, followed by decisions on how much they should spend in producing or in procuring, and what price they should set when they sell. There are so many tools used to come up with decisions, and one of these tools is Game Theory.We can enumerate several reasons why business managers should consider using the Game Theory in its business operations.To reduce business risk. Simulations have been employed by business managers in their risk analysis methodologies. Applying game models is effective in determining equilibrium within the market. Risk analysis makes use of Game Theory in determining optimal price strategy, expected market shares, expected income and number of customers, while obtaining information about the company, the market, the competitors, and the technologies in use, among others.To obtain insights regarding the competition and the overall competitive landscape of the business and the industry. One of the best ways to be competitive is to know your competition. Using Game Theory is very effective in getting information on the various factors related to the competitiveness of the business. The core addresses the question “what are my rivals or opponents thinking?” They want to know what their competition’s next move is â€" their motivations, their strategies, their strengths and their weaknesses, and use all these information to change the game and increase the value of their own business proposition.To improve internal decision-making processes. By playing out business scenarios, companies become more confident in their decisions, and management is more inclined to have greater involvement in the internal decision-making processes.Business managers must beware, however, of how they use Game Theory. It is not a management tool that they can use as a substitute for experience in business. It is merely a tool, or a guide, for them to go about their tasks or roles as business managers.Game Theory applied in Pricing DecisionsThe pricing decisions of a company can be highly influenced by the pricing choices or decisions of rival companies. One popular example was the price-chopping decisions initiated by Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) on their desktop and mobile processors.Intel and AMD are considered to be competitors in a highly specialized niche, and both are in a tight race to gain a l arger share of the market. The first move was taken by Intel, who initiated a price slash on its desktop and mobile processors. AMD reacted by implementing a similar price cut, even if it meant potential losses or decrease in revenues.This price war resulted to both companies seeing significant increases in unit sales and shipments of their products â€" a sign of an increase in their market potential. However, their revenues saw a drop, and so did the profits.The concept of ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ is apparent in this example. Prisoner’s dilemma is best represented by a situation where two criminals, who are accomplices, are interrogated in two separate rooms. The interrogators are not in possession of sufficient evidence or information to make a conviction, so they have to find a way to facilitate a confession. They present each of the suspects with two choices: either defect, or confess to the crime and get a lighter punishment or jail sentence, or they could cooperate, or ref use to say anything, and suffer the punishment due them.The interrogators make it a point to inform both suspects that the other is fully aware of the deal and its connotations. Thus, each of them will make a decision without knowing what the other’s actions will be.If the two suspects decide to defect and make a confession, they will both get the full brunt of the punishment and be sentenced the standard jailtime. If, however, one suspect confesses and the other stays quiet, it is the latter who will get the jail sentence â€" often even longer â€" while the one who confessed gets off with a lighter sentence, or even walks away scot-free.In the AMD and Intel example, AMD reacted with a price slash of its own after Intel made the move first. But what followed was a series of price cuts that could only be described as a “repetition of interactions”. Both companies are aware of each other as long-time competitors, and that they will be playing the same game for a long time to com e. Thus, they have the choice on whether to cooperate with each other and kept their prices higher, or they could engage in mutual price-chopping actions.Game Theory applied in Supply Chain Design DecisionsMany assume that Game Theory applies only to getting the pulse of competitors. However, it can also apply to the relationship of companies with their supply chain partners. Supply chain management can be facilitated by Game Theory concepts.The game can be played in one of two ways. A non-cooperative game is where the players are unable to make binding commitments before making a choice or deciding what strategy to implement. On the other hand, making such commitments is possible in a cooperative game, which means that players can form coalitions and make side-payments.Let us say, for example, that there is only one wholesaler of Product A. All retailers will source their inventory from this single supplier. If there is more than one supplier, however, it becomes a different ball g ame altogether. There are now two suppliers competing for product availability. If the first supplier has unavailable stocks, or are unsatisfactory, the retailers can turn to the other supplier. The payoffs enjoyed by the two players will differ, dependent on several factors such as demand, price and customer satisfaction.Taking into account the Game Theory assumption that all players are acting on their self-interests, it is important to note that their individual choices, when taken as a whole, do not always mean that the supply chain is optimized, or that it is able to enjoy an optimal payoff. Consider the fact that there are multiple players, or companies; this means that the supply chain is decentralized. If you compare it to a centralized chain, with only one or two suppliers, there is a significant difference between the profits. Obviously, the profits in the decentralized supply chain will be lower than that of the centralized chain.Game Theory in Managing Shareholder ValueA performing company is able to provide value to its stakeholders and shareholders. In order for the company to perform well, top management â€" all the way down to the rank-and-file â€" are expected to pull their weight. It is a collective effort, as all are working for everybody, instead of one group focusing on its own compensation without care for the others.Game Theory has been applied in efforts to create compensation schemes that effectively align the interests of all stakeholders of the company: the managers and the workers (the agents), and the shareholders (the principals).It is a given that the shareholders do not have direct control over the actions of the managers and the workers of the company. They also cannot directly monitor them. That does not mean, however, that they are entirely helpless. By offering incentives, they can have a say â€" albeit indirectly â€" on how the managers and the workers should act. These are commonly seen in the relationships between real es tate agents and prospective property and home buyers, and that of franchisees and franchisors.Through Game Theory, we are able to get more than a glimpse of the interactions of agents and use the information obtained in making strategic decisions.Game Theory in Making Entry and Exit DecisionsEntrants to new markets are faced with many questions and dilemmas. This is a decision so huge that a significant amount of research, information-gathering and analysis is required.Say, for instance, that Company B is looking to enter a new market in a South American country. Currently, there is one similar firm â€" Company A â€" operating in that market. Company B’s decision-making process would consider the following:Will Company B make a profit once it enters the market? How will Company A react to the entry, and will the reaction affect the potential profitability?How much investment will entering the market require from Company A? Will Company B’s reaction affect the investment costs?Co mpany B will have to consider all the possible reactions of Company A. Company A can choose to welcome Company B, letting it get a share of the market it used to solely own. Or Company A can choose to start a price war with Company B, cutting its prices in order to maintain its stake on the market.Through Game Theory, Company A can decide whether it would be accommodating to Company B, or if it would be aggressive. Drawing a game tree using the information available in order to see what strategy would be most beneficial or have the bigger payoff.Granted, Game Theory might not be the best or most recommended analysis tool out there for businesses, but no one can deny its usefulness when it comes to day-to-day business operations. Business operations revolve around strategies and interactions â€" essentially a “game” â€" and this discipline tackles a game that involves a strategic interaction between players, with outcomes and payoffs waiting at the end.