Review of Human Behavior Research

by: Kimberly Wylie

Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Review of Human Behavior Research 2

References 9

Abstract

Human behavior has been studied for thousands of years, yet still researchers find interesting aspects of human behavior to continue to study. It is the complexities, still somewhat beyond comprehension, that leaves the exploration of human beings as the true final frontier. Following are discussions on just an infinitesimal portion of the plethora of research on the interesting topic of human behavior. This original research ranges from the study of the ontogeny of serial order behavior in humans to an examination of the theory of planned behavior in the exercise domain.

Review of Human Behavior Research

Human behavior has been studied for thousands of years, yet still researchers find interesting aspects of human behavior to continue to study. It is the complexities, still somewhat beyond comprehension, that leaves the exploration of human beings as the true final frontier. Following are discussions on just an infinitesimal portion of the plethora of research on the interesting topic of human behavior. This original research ranges from the study of the ontogeny of serial order behavior in humans to an examination of the theory of planned behavior in the exercise domain. Michelle Guyla of the Department of Psychology at Rutgers University and Michael Colombo of the Department of Psychology at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand performed the first research reviewed. Guyla & Colombo (2004) noted, “Serial-order information, item information, and associative information were the three types of information important for human memory. (However), despite the obvious importance of serially ordered information for human cognition, there have been few attempts to chart the ontogeny of this behavior. (Their) current study represents an attempt in this direction.”

Their research involved training 78 participants that included 3, 4, 7, and 10 year old children, as well as adults “on a nonverbal serial-order task to respond to 5 items in a specific order.” (Guyla & Colombo, 2004) The older participants, adults and 7 and 10 year olds, did well on both pairwise and triplet tests. According to Guyla & Colombo, (2004) “The latency to respond to the first item of a test pair or triplet was linearly related to that item′s position in the training series for the 7- and 10-year-olds and adults, but not for the 3- and 4-year-olds. These data suggest that older children and adults, but not younger children, developed a well-integrated internal representation of the serial list.”

The theoretical framework is presented with clarity, based on a procedure modeled after Terrace’s procedure developed for use in pigeons, which was later, adapted by D’Amato and Colmbo for use in testing monkeys in their abilities to learn sequencing of stimuli. In addition, the objectives of the research are clearly stated and logically linked to the framework. Age and gender were the two variables analyzed in the study, however, gender was determined not to be a factor and was ruled out early in the study. (Guyla & Colombo, 2004)

The sampling method for the research could have been improved, as there was potential for bias given that the minor aged participants were recruited from a local daycare and could have very similar socioeconomic status and race. This is also true as the adult participants were recruited from a local college. In addition the sample size, could be perceived as inadequate, especially in light of the disparities in the quantities of participants in the age groups. For the study, there were 24 three-year olds, 24 four-year olds, 14 seven-year olds, 8 ten-year olds, and 8 adults. Genders were fairly evenly represented. (Guyla & Colombo, 2004)

In the end, the results of Guyla and Colombo’s research were interesting however more work needs to be performed. A larger sample, representing different socioeconomic classes and races is needed to ensure that results are not specific to their sampling. In addition, older participants, as the oldest member of the study was 25 years of age, should be studied to see if these same findings hold true.

[...]