According to the TV show MythBusters, yawning is, in theory, contagious due to stimulus that individuals acquire from group/social environments. This particular experiment tested the group level of analysis in psychology through controlling the act of yawning by placing individuals in an isolated setting that was composed of hidden outside influences.
A key method used in the experiment was description, explanation, prediction, and control. Also known as the goals of psychology, the testers aimed to describe how yawning was involuntary and the stimulus created from it provoked in others the act of yawning. They also explained that yawning can happen on an individual level but when done so around others it can trigger the same behavior. With fifty people tested, the researchers then predicted that yawning can be an involuntary contagious behavior. To test the possible theory of the contagiousness of yawning the experiment was controlled by a seeded yawn that was implemented to discover if it would increase the behavior of yawning among a group of isolated but grouped individuals.
I would like to argue that the evidence found was in fact not supportive of their confirmation. According to their findings the people who got no stimulus yawned 25% of the time while the people who received stimulus yawned 29% of the time. There’s undoubtedly an increase in the amount of yawning, however, it is not a significant increase. The myth busters confirmed that yawning was contagious but from my standpoint this experiment does not support that theory in that it only shows a 4% increase of yawning. However, to counter my argument a 4% increase could in fact be significant enough to confirm the theory of yawning being a contagious behavior.
Would anyone like to counter my argument?
Mariah Steward - Psychology 
Refinement Post: I agree that only a 4% increase isn’t very contagious, because when we think of something being “contagious” we think of widespread spreading, not a small increase. It should also be mentioned that this wasn’t a big enough experiment to prove anything, so the myth isn’t really “busted” or confirmed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right that 4% isn’t likely enough of a change to call the myth busted. Make sure your future refinement posts reach the 150 word minimum Holly. Also, no research “proves” things, no matter how big the study. I’d also like to see you use terminology from class or the textbook to help improve the explanation laid out in the original post.
LikeLike
You’re right that a 4% increase isn’t particularly convincing. In psychology, we would conduct statistical analyses to determine whether than change was statistically significant to help us interpret whether or not the change was really caused by the manipulation. I’m glad to see you worked some of the terminology from Chapter 1 into your post Mariah, but I’m having trouble picking out the strengths/weaknesses of the study design you identified. Make sure to be address all components of the prompt in future posts.
LikeLike