CH2 Flashcards
what is rationalism
theory/beleivf that reason not expeiriecne is key source of knowledge
The Scientific Method
1.Identify the problem
2. Gather information (research)
3. Generate a hypothesis
4. design and conduct experiment
5. analyze data and formulate conclusions
6 repeat process (replicate exact or with extensions)
Descriptive methods
-methods for gathering information and describing specifics of behaviors, patterns, and other phenomena.
-methods focus on the who, what, and where, versus the why or how.
- there are 4 (naturalistic observation, participant observation, surveys, and case studies)
Naturalistic observation (descriptive method)
- observation as it happens in natural environment. no manipulation
- pros: help generate new ideas about observed phenomenon. ecologically valid behavior
- cons: lack of control, not sure what is influencing behaviour. researcher bias. interrater reliablity (may not achieve). possible hawthorne effect
Participant Observation (descriptive method)
- researcher becomes part of group investigation
- pros: more enriching experiience. greater access to daily life.
- cons: maybey hawthore effect. not reliable and not replicable. researcher bias (may see things that arent there)..
- expriment: David Rosenhan (1960-1970s) were concerned with validity of diagnosis
Case Studies (descriptive method)
- in depth analysis of a unique circumstance or individual
- not replicable. often hard to generalize from one case
- the HM hippocampus case
- phinease gage`
Surveys (descriptive method)
- good to collect quick info
- cons: sampliing error bias, aquiscent response bias. socially desirable bias. illusionary superiority, volunteer bias.
- Alfred kinsey: (1894-1956) revolutioniazed understanding of people sexual behaviours by collecting surveys
sampling error/bias
poor wording of survey questioncan cause confusion and may lead eeople naturally towards one answer
acquiescent response bias
tendancy for participants to agree/respond in the affirmitave on a survey
socially desirable bias
response that will be seen as socially acceotable on a survey
illusionary superiority
tendancy to describe our own behaviours as better then average (on survey)
volunteer bias
only motivated fraction of population participate in survey
RELIABILTY
if study is repeated will we get SAME RESULTS? a study can be reliable but not valid. ex: personiality test is only reliable if results are the same
VALIDITY
do methods used really measure the variable of interest?
- valid study = study that actually measures and tests the variable we want to study and not another variable (study can be reliable but not valid)
Correlation + spurious correlation
observation if two traits are related. or how well you can predict the change in one trait by studying the other trait
-corerelation is NOT causation
- no manipulation of variables
- correlation does not explain WHY it happned
- SPURIOUS: two or more variables are associated but not causally related, due to either coincidence or the presence of a certain third, unseen factor (basically random rubbish)
Experimentation: a third research strategy
- experiments concerned with cause and effect
- manipulating factors of interest tp determine effect
- can test theory
- control group, experimental group
- tests causailty
What is a Hypothesis
- educated guess. rules:
1. consistent with prior observation
2. simple
3. specific
4. measurable/testable
5. establish CAUSALITY
6. falsifiable (cant prove a theory is correct, can prove its incorrect)
Variables (3 types)
- Independent variable: manipulated (experiemmnter decides)
- dependent variable: what is measured, not manipultaed
- extraneous variable: extra things that could influence the result of research if not controlled (sometimes gender, height, etc) not of main interest in research
Random sample
everyoen has equal chance of being picked
Stratified random sample
divide pop into subgroups and take reprsentitive samples
non random sample
due to study contraints, not equal chance
convience sample
work with you got (ex: uni students in a uni survey)
placebo effect + clincal trials
fake medicine, peoples expectation for it to work actually causes symptoms (usually control group in xperiemnt)
- group 1: new drug
- group 2: placebo (control)
- group3: established drug, effect already known
Placebo effect IRL- FIllmore and Sprott
- 1992
- caffeeine experiment. 4 groups
- cafine in coffee will increase performance
- 2 caffeeine will slow performance
-3. not told anything about coffee - no coffee provided
coffe was placebo (decaf) effects as described
Validity + extraneous variables (interal/external validity)
- Internal validity: can results be attributed to independnt and dependent variables, not extraneous variables
- external validity: will results of experiment generalise to people across all settings, across time
Discriptive Vs inferential Stats
- disc: quantitive meaesure. mean, measures of central tendancy, std dev..ect
- inferential: qualititaive measure. involves the use of a sample (1) analyze to estimate some characteristic in a large population; and (2) to test a research hypothesis about a given population.
The testing effect hypothesis
- established to see the effetcs tests have on student retention
- group 1: asked to recall information and were tested on it
- group 2: not tested, asked to recall info from studying ti for a but
- oens who were tested retained more
Measures of Central Tendancy
- Mean Median Mode. watch for outlier
- Range: highest-lowest
- variability: how far apart points lie from each other and from the center of a distribution or a data set.
- Standard deviation: computed meaures how much scores vary around mean
normal distribution
mean=median=mode
How to measure variance and Std dev
variance:
1. subtract mean from every score
2. square the numbers from 1
3. sum the numbers from 2
4. divide number from 3 over # of scores
std dev: square root variance
what does statistically significant mean
- does not mean the data is IMPORTANT
- somewhere there is a dignificant differnece (eg. between a score and a mean, or between 2 means)
- the claim that a result from data generated by testing or experimentation is likely to be attributable to a specific cause. A high degree of statistical significance indicates that an observed relationship is unlikely to be due to chance.
-results are statistically significant if p <5% - results unlikely due to chance, there is a reason why
- (alternative hypotheiss)
Inferring from data using probability
- what is probability of something happening by chance alone
- statistics and the <5% rule
- if probability is less then 5% - rare (less then 1/20)
- results are statistically significant if p <5%
-p = probability
Tuskegee Syphilis Study
- 1932-1972
- african men and women recruited to particpate in study to follow syphyilis
- primised meals and treatmet (did not happen)
researchers misled particpants, so many unecessary deaths, womena nd children caught the disease
-led to spread of syphyilis - prompted federal ethical principles and guidelines for research studies
5 main principles of psych (APA guidlines)
- principle A: benefice and nonmalice
- Principle B: fidelity and responsibility
- Principle C: Integrity
- Principle D: justice
- Principle e: Respect for peoples rights and dignity
IRB Institutional Review Board + guidelines
- reviews whether study is ethical or not before starting it
guidlines: - study will use sound research design
- minimize risk
- benifits outweigh risks
- participalnts give informed consent and withdraw any time without consequences
- protect well being of participants
- keep data private and confiential
- consent is a process`
Items in a consent form
- whos is running study, influcing contact info
- why is study taking place
- risks and benifits
- what will participants be doing
- that participants can withdraw at any time
- how data will be stored (anonymity and fidntiality)
Facebook Emotional Contagion Experiment
- 2012
- researchers maipulted how may positive or ngative news feeds 600,000 users saw
- those that saw positive posted positive
- those that saw negative posted negative
- its a bit of a gray ethical area, some argue its unethical, some think its fine since your data is online,b
- but the people had no idea they were in the study
Vulnerable Populations (ethical considerations)
1.Decisonal impairment: potential participant has diminshed cpacity to provide informed consent (childre, mental disabled)
2. situational vulerabiltly: fredom of choice to participate in research is compromised because of influecne from another source (criminals, military personal) who may feel obligated to apricpate out of fear or economically disadvantged people if there is a benfit for them.
research shoudl consider this before recruiting vulnerable populations for studies
- study should be donw on participants without vulnerabilities if possible
-researchers should adress needs, condiitons , priporties of vulnerable pop - individuals with addiotnal vulnerabilities both informed consent from parent guardians and ASSENT are required
- for situational vulnerability, additional safeguards may be implemented
Deception: another ethical consideration + criteria to us deception by IRB
- researchers may feel that informing participants of real intnt of resarch may change outcome (like if there are actors involedv in the resarch, the participoants cant know theyre fake)
- witholding info during informed consent process
- ethically gray area
- criteria IRB:
1. research poses no more then minial risk to participants
2. deception does not effect rights and well being of participants
3. researchers must provide justification that deception is needed
4. participants should be debriefed after study, can ask questions
Milgrams Experiment
- 1961
- psychologist at yale
- wanted to understand hwo peopel would obey even to the point of killing
- learner: was the researcher, the teacher was the recruited participant
- teacher said word to studnet behind screen, studnt would reply with a word in similar
- if studnt was wrong, learner would deliver shock, increasing every time there was a wrong anser (fake shock)
- researcher made purposeful mistakes and yelled to be let out
-experimenter there who told teacher to keep going
results
- 2/3 carried on to full expermeints (450 volts) even when they thought learner was DEAD
- encouragemtn of expirment violated particpant dignity brough trauma and discomfort.
