Exam 1 Flashcards
5 methods of knowing
1) intuition- feels like you know something or that it may work
2) rationalism
3) experience
4) authority
5) scientific method- proves to work
intuition
instinct
confirmation and overconfidence bias
illusory correlations and availability heuristic
failing to think about what we cannot see
confirmation bias
ask biased questions
focus on evidence we like best
falls under intuition
overconfidence bias
falls under intuition
biased about being biased
if we feel like we know something our confidence goes up
illusory correlations
notice superstitions, patterns or habits
ex: watching a football game, when u leave the room they score so you stay out of the room
falls under intuition
availability heuristic
falls under intuition
heard more about= may be more likely to happen
how does intuition get us in trouble?
gets us in trouble through bias in motivation (we have a preference to confirm what we already know), focus on what we like best
rationalism
using logic and reason to make decisions
relies on premises to make conclusions
ways rationalism fails us?
premises might be faulty
people are not good at it
research doesnt show our rationalism
contact comfort theory
w/ the monkeys
have attachment because of comfort provided
cupboard theory
w/monkeys
provides needs therefore there is an attachment
what makes a good theory (4 things)?
1) supported by data
2) falsifiable
3) parsimonious- aka simple
4) weight of evidence- lots of studies=more weight
how to distinguish pseudoscience (4 things) ?
1) associates w/science but does not progress like science
2) relies on anecdotal evidence
3) sidesteps disproof
4) reduces complex phenomena to overly simplistic concepts
4 scientific cycles (“layers”)
1) theory data cycle-( systematic empiricism), theory, run experiment, etc.
2) basic applied research- basic= simple questions to build knowledge applied= how do we build on our knowledge through research?
3) peer review cycle- scholarly article, says “received, revised, accepted”
4) journal to journalism- scientist puts out their paper and the paper helps inform others
3 goals of scientific research
1) description- (frequency claims), describe something, make a claim
2) prediction- (association claims- correlational studies), there’s a link between 2 things so you make a prediction
3) explanation- (casual claims-experiments)
empirical studies
original research
sections of the article reflect the stages of the research process
literature reviews
offer criticial syntheses of existing literature
may be narrative or meta-anayltic in nature
theoretical articles
present development of a theory
may use evidence to support theory
methological articles
new research or data analytic methods
may use actual or simulated data to demonstrate methods
case studies
materials obtained from single case
theory
interrelated concepts that explains a body of data, allows us to make future predictions, explains established data and generates predictions
what makes a good theory?
supported by data, simple, falsifiable, weighted
hypothesis
a specific prediction, statement between 2 variables
what makes a good hyopthesis?
1) logical- based on existing research
2) testable- must be able to observe and gather data
3) positive prediction- predicting a relationship
4) refutable/ falsifiable- able to gather evidence where you can refute hypothesis
what are the primary ethical principles?
Justice
beneficence
Autonomy
justice
any decision to include/exclude particpants must be justified scientifically
beneficence
maximize benefits and minimize harm
cost benefit anyalsis
autonomy
treated as autonomous and capable decison makers
informed consent
protection of vulnerable populations
deception and debriefing
misrepresentation of data ( 4 things)
reporting research results
plagiarism
fidelity and responsibility
integrity
animal ethical principles (5 things)
replacement-use alternative methods to avoid use of animals
refinement-refine techniques to minimize pain and suffering
reduction-minimize the # of procedures or animals used
rehabilitation-provide care and rehab after study
repayment- donation to speices, acknowledgment
constructs
mental abstractions
conceptual
subjective
not directly observable
ex: depression
variables
an attribute that varies
conceptual defintion
dictionary definition
operational defintion
define the variables of a hypothesis in a measured way
what are the 3 common types of measures?
self report
behavioral/observational
physiological
what are the scales of measurement (4 things)?
NOIR
nominal
ordinal
interval
ratio
frequency claims
goal is to explain
1 variable, stating something
association claim
2 variables that are related
predicting
measured
causal claims
1 variable manipulated 1 measured
explaining
one variable is causing something
correlation coefficient
number representing the strength and direction of correlation
causal claims (3 things)
covariance- A is related to B, predictable relationship
temporal precedence- A came before B
Eliminate confounds( internal validity)- rule out other variations, “3rd variable”
confounding variables
systematically differ, provide alternative explanation
extraneous variables
bringing in your own life history, cant control
non-experimental research designs
relationships studied by making observations or measuring variables as they exist naturally
ex: descriptive studies
case studies
naturalistic observations
surveys
interviews
experimental study description
direct manipulation and control of variables, then measuring response
3 reliability measurements
1) test-retest
2)interrater
3) internal consistency
test-retest
attained when measures of performance are similar
interrater
the amount of agreement
internal consistnecy
degree to which you’re consistent with yourself
internal validity
the degree to which we can say A, rather than some other variable is responsible for effect B
external validity
degree to which the results of the study generalize to the larger population or other situations
applies to all claims
criteria for establishing internal validity
1) covariance
2) temporal precedence
3) eliminate confounds
statistical validity
extent to which statistical conclusions are accurate and reasonable
construct validity
degree to which the measurement accurately measures a theoretical construst
validity of measurements
construct validity- how well our operationalization is measuring what is supposed to be measured
subjective
empirical
branches of subjective
face and construct validity
empirical branches
criterion
convergent
discriminent (divergent)
face validity
the extent to which the a measurement method appears on its face to measure the construct of interest
content validity
the extent to which a measure covers the construct of interest
does my measure cover the whole definition?
looking at past studies
criterion validity
the extent to which people’s scores on a measure are correlated with other variables that one would expect them to be correlated with
how well does our measure correlate?
predict and concurrent
convergent validity
the extent to which people’s scores on a measure are correlated with other measures of the same construct
how well does our measure correlate with existing known measures
discriminant validity
the extent to which scores on a measure are not correlated with measures of variables that are conceptually distinct
compare to something that we wouldn’t expect a relationship with
