article

Running Head: NEUROBIOLOGY

NEUROBIOLOGY 6

Neurobiology

Shanae Hampton

Dr. Alzen

Cal Baptist University

BEH 250

June 1, 2020

Introduction

Good job including an introduction that gives some contextual information about the article. Try to be a little clearer in your language though. This is hard to follow if you haven't read the article.

This article seeks to address the role of stress-related and social reward-related neural activity where the main focus is to examine the relation between giving and receiving. The impact of supportive ties of an individual and their health status looking at how one receives a health benefit that one receives as they ignore the support giver as well as how giving may contribute to the general good health. Various approaches shall be utilized to fetch information from the individual experiences as well as from the doctoral perspective. It is worth noting that the neural regions involved in maternal caregiving behavior in animals as well as the provision of social support in humans are also known to process the basic reward including ventral striatum and the septal area. Thus the analysis will base on the suggestions that support giving as an overlooked contributor to how social support can benefit health.

Article Evaluation

The main components evaluated in this article will the examination of whether self-related support receiving related to negative psychological outcomes and neural activity to three tasks. I will also examine the associations between self-reported support giving and negative psychological outcomes and neural activity to the three tasks. The analysis will be based on the findings that have risen that giving to others might be good for health and relationships, analysis of how support giving can be associated with less negative psychological outcomes, a decrease in the stress-related activities, an increase in the reward-related activities and the general pro-social task.

Measurement

The main measurement strategy that these authors utilized in the research was the behavioral surveys where analysis is done on how individuals take on the value of the reward and how they respond back to the person who rewarded. With this analysis the behavioral model helps them to come up with the response variables as and the effort brought to the social domains of an individual: (Inagaki.et.al.2016). Since the results being examined as psychological where the essence of good health is being searched this measurement strategy works to unleash all indicators of both positive and negative psychological outcomes that result to stress-related activities and the need for an individual to increase rewards to earn a social stability. The challenge to this strategy is that these surveys are subject to response biases which affect the quality of results. Could use more explanation of response bias.

The variables in this case could have been measured using the milestone approach since they track the development of the results out of a certain action hence they will help to read and understand the caregiving behaviors in both animals and human beings and hence enable better results. The limitation is that it may work based on assumptions where the milestones are subjected to doctoral experiences that may not be good to obtain the rational psychological change. What about the fMRI tasks? How was that used to collect data?

Sampling

The sample for analysis contained 47 individuals that formed the study on the neural mechanisms associated with social support. The self-reported ethnic composition included 8.3% Black/ African American, 22.2% Latino/Chicano, 33.3% White, 30.6% Asian, and 5.6% Other languages which helped to provide the required information.

Basing on the samples provided, the authors aimed to generalize the social support scale as a result of the self-reported ethnic composition. The composition is very important when it comes to analysis of the relationship between the health of an individual and the factors that contribute to the condition including the negative psychological outcomes, the stressful task and the health related activities. This limits the effectiveness of the results obtained in terms of fulfilling the set hypotheses since through generalization the analysis may not understand the individual social and psychological characteristics . Who are they trying to generalize to?

Analysis

One of the assumptions made by the author is the historical reliability that social support is associated with less stress which in terms affects the negative psychological outcomes. Such assumptions led to the increase of the vulnerability increase among some samples. A “vulnerability index” was created that included depression like Beck Depression Inventory,36), sensitivity to social rejection including Mehrabian Rejection Sensitivity(37), perceptions of stress (Perceived Stress Scale,38), and feelings of loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale,39). I'm having a difficult time understanding what you are trying to argue here. I also don't see a plausible example of how the direction of causality may be inverted.

These figures provides the direction of the causality based on the vulnerability index and thus Over time, the feedback indicated that participants’ performance based on how quickly and accurately they responded relative to the average student became increasingly worse as the typical student’s performance grew better, thus amplifying the social evaluative nature and uncontrollability of the situation.

Ethics

As a way of protecting the rights and safety of the participants involved in the investigations, For example, giving support to a romantic partner in need against those not giving support was activated both the VS and SA (32). Furthermore, one of these regions, the SA, was negatively correlated with amygdala activity when participants gave support to their partners, suggesting that caregiving-related circuitry may help dampen response to stress. These were some acts of ethics in the operation that could not only protect them but also motivate their intrinsic moves . I'm struggling to understand what you're saying. I was expecting you to talk about risk to participants in the study and what the researchers did to protect that.

Some of the potential issues mentioned in the study included exploration of the affinitive task where images of close others were reformatted into standard space and presented along with gender, race, and age-matched strangers in a block design. In addition to exploring associations between social support and neural activity to a stressful and affiliative task, we wanted to understand the associations between social support and neural responses to acting pro-socially.

Conclusion

This article brings out clearly that the relationship between support giving and reduced stress-related neural activity, support giving was also associated with increased VS activity to viewing images of close others. Those who reported giving more support to others also displayed greater reward-related activity to images of their own loved ones. There was no such association between VS activity and reports of receiving support (Inagaki.et.al.2016). To enhance the quality of this article, there is need to include more empirical research that will help to bolster the arguments and reduce more of assumption bases to draw a conclusion for example the historical bases as a source of findings.

References

Inagaki, T. K., Haltom, K. E. B., Suzuki, S., Jevtic, I., Hornstein, E., Bower, J. E., & Eisenberger, N. I. (2016). The neurobiology of giving versus receiving support: the role of stress-related and social reward-related neural activity. Psychosomatic medicine, 78(4), 443.

Missing hanging indent. First word after the colon should be capitalized in the article title and the full journal name should be capitalized.