Exam 1 Flashcards
ways of knowing information: experience definition
making assumptions based on previous experience
why do we rely on experiential knowledge?
accessible, trust our own experiences
problems with experiential knowledge
over-generalization
subjective
salient
no comparison group
bias
confounded
confounded definition
what is happening could be caused by another variable
ways of knowing information: authority definition
relying on information from an “expert”
problem with relying on authority
many people look or sound like an authority when they are not
ex: person wearing a white coat
ways of knowing information: intuition definition
relying on information that “feels right”
problems with relying on intuition
humans are swayed by a good story
fall prey to the availability heuristic
biased towards what we already believe (but we don’t think we are)
ways of knowing information: empiricism definition
practice of relying on observation
problems with relying on empiricism
more bias
pre-registration
before running a study, you have to say what the study is that you are doing to run, your hypothesis, and your methods so that you can’t change it along the way
open science
criticisms of psychology
WEIRD
agenda’d
dishonesty
replication crisis
top tier journal effect
positive effect bias
null findings
WEIRD
white, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic
agenda’d
“psychology has a liberal bias”
etc
dishonesty
data fabrication, lying
replication crisis
only 36% of studies were replicated
positive effect bias
published only studies that “worked”
null findings
when there is no significant effect found
registered reports
before you run a study, you submit intro and methods
then run the study and report it
as long as it is done how you said it would be done, it gets published
what makes something good science?
unbiased, replicable, open and transparent, use of the scientific method
double blind study
researcher doesn’t know what condition the participant is under, and the participant doesn’t know what condition they are in
effect/error
larger proportion=more likely to be significant
good science characteristics
no causal language
variables must be continuous or continuous-like
examining relationships, not comparing groups
what makes something science?
scientific method: observe something, form a hypothesis, run the study, analyze the results, form a conclusion
science is an iterative process meaning
can keep trying, changes in society, things relevant now weren’t relevant then, failed experiments, don’t always get the same answer, changes and evolves as we learn more
ceiling effect
ex: if everyone got a 100 on a test, the test needs to be more difficult
floor effect
ex: if everyone got a 0 on a test, the test needs to be easier
social desirability
people don’t want to look bad when self reporting
theory definition
set of concepts that explains data and predicts future events; set of statements that describes general principles about how variables relate to one another
social dominance theory
some people prefer social hierarchy more than others and this can lead them to push other groups down
Chris Crandall
theory about how the environment someone is in will impact how prejudiced they are
empirical paper
new data
review paper
summarizing
replication paper
retesting
theory paper
bring all the empirical studies together and summarize it into a phenomenon/idea
meta-analysis
takes a ton of empirical data and reruns stats all together
observational study
observing things happening
collecting data from the outside
still have a research Q and hypothesis
would need other people observing to remove bias
observe behaviors -> draw conclusions
ethnography
observational study from within the group being studied
if you’re interested in cults, join the cult
Leon Festinger
correlational study
more than 1 variable, at least one IV and one DV
relationships between variables
all variables have to be on a continuum
3 outcomes: positive correlation, negative correlation, or no correlation
aggregate data: the overall effect, like the average trend
experimental study
1+ IV, 1+ DV
groups for the IV, under different conditions, categorical
groups are manipulated, people are randomly assigned into them
have at least 2 groups
not looking at relationships, comparing the averages between groups
field experiments
in the real world, not in the lab
different from observational because you are still manipulating something
ex: how is men’s urination impacted by someone standing at the urinal next to them?
quasi-experimental
exactly the same as experimental but no random assignment
can’t randomly assign things like gender
cannot use causal language
determinants of causality
covariation, temporal precedence, and internal validity
covariation
when the predictor changes, so does the outcome
all study designs meet this criteria
temporal precedence
predictor precedes the outcome
can’t have DV before IV
quasi and correlational do NOT meet this criteria
experiment do: because of random assignment, manipulation is happening before the experiment
internal validity
you have the ability to rule out third variables (confounds)
ex: as ice cream sales increase, so do shark attacks. Third variable is summer/increase in temperature
quasi and correlational do NOT meet this criteria
operational definitions
how do you measure or manipulate something in your study
you choose this as the researcher
no right or wrong answer, only what you can get other people to buy in to
reliability question
am I measuring one thing?
validity question
is it the right thing?
