Criminal Memories, Punishment, and Social Control

A. Outline the findings of Riesel, et al.

This study examined the anxiety response after test subjects made a mistake while completing a task. In addition, researchers wanted to witness if the anxiety response after making a mistake increased with intensity after the punishment was enforced for making a mistake. Test subjects were told that mistakes made would be punishable 50% of the time. The researchers punished half of the mistakes during the first half of the experiment and never punished during the second half of the experiment. During the second half of the experiment, researchers would then test the anxiety response in the form of brain activity to see if the previous punishment created a different response in the brain. They found that the punishment did have a lasting impact on brain activity. Essentially, anxiety increased when performing the task if the test subjects knew that punishment was possible.

B. Outline the findings of Bergstrom, et al.

Recent studies and developments in technology have stated that the decoding of criminal guilt in brain activity is possible. There is an intense debate about whether or not this is true. Such an outstanding claim warrants scrutiny as the guilty could be found innocent by evading detection using counter-measure memory suppression or the innocent could be found guilty if the technology is not accurate. This study examines the human mind’s ability to suppress memories regarding criminal activity and criminal punishment. Certain brain-activity markers regarding guilty knowledge have been proven as an indicator of past criminal activity. The study seeks to learn if people can suppress incriminating memories that would establish limits on their testimony in the legal setting. The ability to suppress criminal activity can allow guilty individuals from being detected. The study concluded that there is not enough evidence to suggest the actual brain marker in question is suppressing a guilty memory at a specific time.

C. Compare and contrast Elaine Lui’s view of gossip with the findings of Feinberg, et al. Discuss the possible relevance of the size of the population being studied.

Feinberg, et al. argues that sharing opinion or evaluation about a third party is positive because it can warn other group members about the social wrongdoings of that party as well as working to increase the social incentives that encourage socially acceptable behavior. The study found that gossip works the same way in people as do other forms of punishment – when actively engaging in something that is perceived to be socially unacceptable or wrong, anxiety increases in an effort to deter that behavior in normally functioning people.  

Elaine Lui is a professional gossiper. Her website is designed to provide a platform to gossip about celebrities. She stated her laboratory is the VIP rooms, red carpets, and other locations where celebrities interact. She argues that celebrities use the gossip mechanism to make money by securing status and selling products. She argues that gossip is an ecosystem that can be studied in the same way other environmental ecosystems can – to help encourage the understanding of how humans behave in a system where gossip exists.

The size of the population being studied has an impact because anthropological research has found that gossip has different punishment intensity based on the size of social groups. In small social groups, for example, gossip has a more detrimental impact because the information can potentially spread to every member.

D.  Identify the social control exhibited in both Lui’s talk and the Feinberg study.

Gossip is a form of social control because it works to deter socially unacceptable behaviors. Gossip also gives an incentive for people to comply with social norms. The group gossips in approval or a lack of acceptance. Lui’s talk and the Feinberg study both support the concept of gossip as being a method to spread information about a third party that is effective in bullying and steering behavior for a social group. The third-party, also being well-versed in gossip, must consider what others will presume when engaging in a behavior. Both studies seem to ignore the possibility of gossip being spread as character assassination with negative consequences for a third party who may be innocent of a behavior. Certainly, people can take advantage of gossip networks to spread lies and defame another person out of jealousy. While gossip may have social control mechanisms, the ability to spread lies using the gossip network cannot be ignored in the argument on whether gossip is actually positive socially.  

E. Briefly describe 3 issues with validity in the Bergstrom, et al study (ie: lab setting vs. real-world)

There are three weaknesses in the design of the Bergstrom, et al study – sample size, cultural implications, and environment of testing. The sample size in the Bergstrom study was small enough to question validity. The two test groups only held 24 people. This test size leaves a significant degree of possible mistake or deviation in results interpretation imposed on the entire populous. The test subjects were either from Germany or England. The nature of gossip within various cultures may be different. For example, gossip in England may be less severe than in an African nation. The test group only represented two cultures from a very similar ethnic background. The testing took place in a laboratory in lieu of a more natural setting. People tend to behave differently when inside a lab as opposed to a natural environment. The test subjects could alter their natural behaviors while in the lab and skew the results.