Chapter 1 - Intro Flashcards
what is psych?
- scientific study of behaviour
- study of thinking, emotion, cognition
goal of psych
to describe, explain, predict, and control
give an example of a different level of analysis
analyzing 1 individual vs. analyzing a group of individuals
psychological knowledge
- how do we know what we know?
- how do we learn what we don’t know?
questions to ask when thinking critically about a study, headline, etc.
- who is the sample? is it representative?
- how would the researchers have measured this? what were their methods?
- what things might have skewed these results?
- what kind of people were studied? (ie. age, economic status, residence, etc.)
human reasoning
- we can’t trust our personal experience as a valid source of evidence
- many other variables, as well as the regression to the mean, may actually be the things changing our behaviour
if there is a strong correlation between 2 variables, does that imply a causal relationship?
- no! Correlation does not imply causation
- other explanations are possible, like a 3rd variable
order in random events
- given random data, we look for order/meaningful patterns, even if none exist
- ex. hot-hand phenomenon: believing that if a basketball player makes 3 shots, they’re more likely to make the 4th -> untrue, we’re just attributing meaning to that event
confirmation bias
- we attend to info we agree with and ignore what we don’t
- ex. study on attitudes toward capital punishment where reading fact sheets about its pros and cons strenghtened people’s beliefs; those who slightly supported it now strongly supported it (and vice versa) because they only attended to info that supported their belief
- ex. psychiatrists mistakenly diagnosing patients as depressed b/c they gave symptoms of depression first, even though they later gave way more symptoms of anxiety
can we trust smart people? (professors, doctors, etc.)
- not really, smart people aren’t immune to biases and faulty reasoning
- we have a tendency to try to explain things we don’t understand, even if the explanation is ridiculous (ex. greek poet’s explanation for the solar eclipse)
- thoeries that seem well-researched can be completely inaccurate (ex. phrenology)
- we continue to do things even if they make no sense (ex. icing the kicker even though there’s no data to show that it works)
what we can’t trust vs. what we can trust
- we can’t trust our own personal experiences, the opinions of friends, relatives, loved ones, or smart people
- we can trust data
why do we need the scientific method?
to protect us from sloppy thinking and human reasoning
7 hallmarks of the scientific method
- objective observation and logically necessary conclusions based on studies
- parsimonious explanations
- independent replication
- scepticism
- careful designs
- falsifiability
- open-mindedness
objective observation and logically necessary conclusions based on a study
- hallmark of scientific method
- ex. the logically necessary conclusion would be that stressful life events are related to depression, not that they cause depression
parsimonious explanations
- hallmark of scientific method
- if we have 2 theories that explain something, we go with the more efficient one (unless it can’t explain something that a more complex one can)
independent replication
- hallmark of scientific reasoning
- if only 1 person is showing that something is true, we need to be weary of it
- we want an independent team to look at it as well, and we can only be confident if they find the same thing
skepticism
- hallmark of scientific reasoning
- be sceptical of the study until you can look into it and see that it’s a well designed one
careful designs
- hallmark of scientific reasoning
- using study designs to help us avoid alternative explanations (ie. regression to the mean)
falsifiability
- hallmark of scientific reasoning
- translating a theory into a way where it can either be proven true or false
open-mindedness
- hallmark of scientific reasoning
- being open to someone else’s ideas and evidence rather than using confirmation bias to ignore their thoughts if they don’t agree with your own
the dialectic of science
“science is a unique mix of openness and skepticism”
research process
- theory (ex. low self-esteem feeds depression)
- hypothesis (ex. people with low self-esteem will score higher on a depression scale)
- research and observations (ex. administer tests of self-esteem and depression; see if a low score on one predicts a high score on the other)
- Generate new theories or refine yours, and the cycle continues
when human reasoning goes unchecked by scientific investigation
- reasoning/theories -> reasoning/theories -> reasoning/theories -> who knows??
- reasoning/theories -> anecdotal evidence -> reasoning/theories -> who knows??