Chapter 2 - Psychological Research Flashcards
empirical
- what scientific knowledge (and psych) is grounded in
- based on objective, tangible evidence that can be observed repetitively by different people
opinions
- research makes the difference between facts and opinions
- personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may be accurate
facts
- research makes the difference between facts and opinions
- observable realities
deductive reasoning
- when ideas are tested in the real world
- part of the scientific method, ongoing cycle of wonder and test
inductive reasoning
- when real world observations lead to new ideas
- part of the scientific method, ongoing cycle of wonder and test
theory
- a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena
- repeatedly checked against the world, but usually to complex to test all a once
hypothesis
- a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our idea is correct
- often an if-then statement
- used to test aspects of a theory
falsifiable
- capable of being shown to be incorrect
- allows hypotheses to be testable and allows for confidence it results it produces
clinical/case studies
- when in observational research, scientists focus on one person or just a few individuals
- can learn a lot about the phenomena this way
generalizing
- the ability to apply the findings of a particular research project to larger segments of society
- con of case studies because they can’t do this
naturalistic observation
- observing behavior in its natural setting
- ideally allows people to behave more normally when being observed
- observer must be inconspicuous
observer bias
- people who observe are closely involved in the research project and may unconsciously skew their observations to fit their research goals
- negative of naturalistic observation
inter-rater reliability
- a measure of reliability that assesses the consistency of observations by different observers
surveys
- lists of questions to be answered by research participants (electronically, verbally, or by pen and paper)
- con is people may not be truthful, less in depth information
sample
- a subset of individuals studied that represent a larger population
population
- the overall group of individuals that the researchers are interested in
- observe a smaller representative sample to do this
archival research
- researchers using existing records to answer various research questions
- con of this is they have no control on how research was collected
longitudinal research
- a research design in which data-gathering is administered repeatedly over an extended period of time
- con is results may not come for a long period of time, participants may drop out
cross-sectional research
- a researcher compares multiple segments of the population at the same time
attrition
- reduction in the number of research participants due to dropouts
- in longitudinal studies are quite high and increase over the course of a project
correlation
- that there is a relationship between two or more variables
- relationship does NOT imply cause and effect
- allows us to discover the strength and direction of relationships that exist between two variables
correlation coefficient
- a number from -1 to +1 that indicates the strength and direction of the relationship between variables
- closer the number is to 1 (+ or -), the stronger the relationship
positive correlation
- the variables move in the same direction (i.e. as one increases, the other increasese)
negative correlation
- the variables move in opposite directions (e.g. as one goes down the other goes up)
cause and effect
- correlation is limited because establishing the existence of a relationship tells us little about
confounding variable
- when variables are sometimes correlated because one does cause the other
- BUT some other factor, a confounding variable, is actually causing the systematic movement in our variables of interest
illusory correlations
- when people believe that relationships exist between two things when no such relationship exists
- aka false correlation
- can be dangerous bc can enforce things like prejudice
confirmation bias
- tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports prior beliefs or values
experimental group
- group getting experimental manipulation (the treatment or variable being tested)
- by only changing one thing we can determine what effect it has
control group
- the group where no variable is being modified
- made to compare against experimental group
operational definition
- a precise description of our variables
- important in allowing others to understand exactly how and what a researcher measures in a particular experiment
experimenter bias
- the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study
- might combat this by not telling researcher groups when looking at data
single-blind study
- one of the groups are unaware which group they are in (experiment or control) while the researcher knows which participants are in each group
double-blind study
- both the researchers and the participants are blind to group assignments (control or exp.)
placebo effect
- occurs when people’s expectations or beliefs influence/determine their experience in a situation
independent variable
- variable manipulated or controlled by the experimenter
- usually the only difference between both groups
dependent variable
- what the researcher measures to see how much effect the independent variable had
participants
- the subjects of psychological research
- usually college students (don’t rep. majority of population)
random sample
- a subset of a larger population in which every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected
- helps results be generalized
random assignment
- all participants have an equal chance of being assigned to either group
statistical analysis
- conducted to find out if there are meaningful differences between the two groups
peer-reviewed journal
- aimed at an audience of professionals and scholars who are actively involved in research themselves
- checked by experts for reasonability
replicate
- scientists can repeat the experiment using different samples to determine reliability
reliability
the ability to consistently produce a given result
validity
the extent to which a given instrument or tool accurately measures what it’s supposed to measure
institutional review board (IRB)
- a committee of individuals made up of members of the institution
- reviews proposals for research that involves human participants
informed consent
a written description of what participants can expect during the experiment, including potential risks and implications of the research
deception
- purposely misleading experiment participants to maintain the integrity of the experiment
- deception can’t be harmful though
debriefing
- happens after studies where people were deceived
- information about experiment’s purpose, data usage, why deception was used, and information about how to learn more about the study
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)
- consists of institutional administrators
- ensure that experimental proposals require the humane treatment of animal subjects / inspect facilities
the only way to establish cause and effect relationships
- conducting a scientific experiment (with precise requirements for design and experimentation)
issues with experiments
- can’t directly control for all variables
- limited by ethical constraints
replication “crisis”
- some well-known studies have produced research that has failed to be replicated by others
- part of this is there’s no glory in validating results
experimenter effects
things we’re doing as a researcher that may affect the data results
demand characteristics
certain type of behavior is assumed to be expected by the subject, altering the results
rights of people in studies (4 things)
- right to self esteem
- right to informed consent
- right to privacy
- right to leave study at any time
Milgram experiment
study that wanted to see if people will hurt others when authority tells them to (i.e. Nazis and holocaust)
nature vs. nurture
To what extent are we products of our genes (nature) or our environment (nurture)