Future of research Flashcards
Thinking like a psychological scientist
- Use a critical thinking approach
- No to taking things at face value.
- Yes to questioning the validity, authenticity and truth of a report.
- Sources of knowledge
- No to superstition and intuition.
- Yes to rationalism (logical reasoning) and empiricism (via observations). That is how
you will gain psychological scientific knowledge.
Science never proves anything
- When scientists test their hypotheses, they are not
trying to prove them true. We try to find evidence for
or against a hypothesis. We are always trying to
disprove our hypothesis, it must be falsifiable. - We are seeking the truth, finding evidence, obtaining
support. Not trying to prove a hypothesis or theory
true. - We need to try and falsify the hypothesis/rule. If we cannot falsify it, then we
can support our hypothesis/rule.
Cautious when interpreting results
- But even when we falsify/do not support our
hypothesis, if doesn’t mean that the hypothesis is
false. - We always need to be cautions in our interpretation.
- Perhaps there were confounding factors, issues with
our sampling strategy or design, etc. - We don’t discount or advocate for
hypotheses/theories on single studies, hopefully… - Continually seek evidence.
Thinking like a psychological scientist
- Always keen in mind variability.
- There’s a distribution behind all averages.
There is always uncertainty around our
estimates. - Variability is sometimes difficult to
communicate with the general public, but it’s
very important. - Risk is not destiny.
- Mind the “gaps”.
- Always keep in mind effect size (versus
statistical significance). - Just because something is statistically
significant, does not mean it is meaningful.
Mind the “gaps”.
- We often want to dichotomise (rich v poor) and that leads us to claiming about dichotomous differences. Rarely do these
dichotomous differences exist (even if the differences between them is huge); the majority usually live in between. - Don’t forget about important patterns of effects that will influence your
interpretation. - Multiple comparisons (increases Type 1 error rate).
- Regression to the mean. Extreme values will be closer to the mean on the
next observation (i.e. not as extreme).
UK postcodes
- Cognitive psychologists from Cambridge University
(Conrad, Baddley, et al.) were asked to design the
UK postcode system in the late 1950s. Had to: - Memorable.
- Sort to street level.
- They designed a system of alphanumeric codes
generally consisting of 6 or 7 letter-number
combinations, separated by a space. The first half of
the code (the outward code) includes letters that
denote the town or city (although there are
exceptions) and a number that narrows the location
to a specific area. - Took into account working memory constraints (not
more than 7 or 8 items); “digit span”. - Took into account that letters+numbers easier to
remember than numbers only. Letters+numbers
enabled a larger number of permutations than
numbers only. - They put letters representing region first, as it’s
easier to remember (you presumably remember your
region). Because less error prone, if you make a
mistake in subsequent digits, it’ll at least get to the
right area. - Second section relates to street (number then two
letters), with the thought to create a rhythm.
CB3 9HD
The dress
- Broke the internet in 2015!
- Colour judgments under ambiguous
circumstances. - Has led to dozens of psychological
perception studies. - Individual differences underly
perception. - Previous experience (guess as to what light
was above the dress, blue or yellow). - Beliefs about the correct answer.
- Optimism.
The “natural” experiment
- Sometimes, things systematically
change without being conceptualised as
an experiment. - Natural experiments arise when
comparable individuals or groups of
people are sorted by “nature” into
something like a control and treatment
group. - Reduction in air pollution over 2008
Beijing Olympics, led to an increase in
baby weight (23g), as compared to
same period in 2007 and 2009. - Air pollution appears to influence foetal
development.
The Little Albert Experiment, 1920
A John’s Hopkins University professor, Dr. John B. Watson, and a graduate student wanted to test a learning process called classical conditioning.
A nine-month-old toddler, dubbed “Albert B,” was volunteered for Dr. Watson and Rosalie Rayner‘s experiment. Albert played with white furry objects, and at first, the toddler displayed joy and affection. Over time, as he played with the objects, Dr. Watson would make a loud noise behind the child’s head to frighten him. After numerous trials, Albert was conditioned to be afraid when he saw white furry objects.
Stanford Prison Experiment, 1971
Stanford professor Philip Zimbardo wanted to learn how individuals conformed to societal roles. He wondered, for example, whether the tense relationship between prison guards and inmates in jails had more to do with the personalities of each or the environment.
During Zimbardo’s experiment, 24 male college students were assigned to be either a prisoner or a guard. The prisoners were held in a makeshift prison inside the basement of Stanford’s psychology department. They went through a standard booking process designed to take away their individuality and make them feel anonymous. Guards were given eight-hour shifts and tasked to treat the prisoners just like they would in real life.
Zimbardo found rather quickly that both the guards and prisoners fully adapted to their roles; in fact, he had to shut down the experiment after six days because it became too dangerous. Zimbardo even admitted he began thinking of himself as a police superintendent rather than a psychologist. The study confirmed that people will conform to the social roles they’re expected to play, especially overly stereotyped ones such as prison guards.
The Asch Conformity Study, 1951
Solomon Asch, a Polish-American social psychologist, was determined to see whether an individual would conform to a group’s decision, even if the individual knew it was incorrect.
In his experiment, Asch selected 50 male college students to participate in a “vision test.” Individuals would have to determine which line on a card was longer. However, the individuals at the center of the experiment did not know that the other people taking the test were actors following scripts, and at times selected the wrong answer on purpose. Asch found that, on average over 12 trials, nearly one-third of the naive participants conformed with the incorrect majority, and only 25 percent never conformed to the incorrect majority. In the control group that featured only the participants and no actors, less than one percent of participants ever chose the wrong answer.
The Bobo Doll Experiment, 1961, 1963
Stanford University professor Albert Bandura wanted to put the social learning theory into action.
Bandura and two colleagues selected 36 boys and 36 girls between the ages of 3 and 6 from the Stanford University nursery and split them into three groups of 24. One group watched adults behaving aggressively toward the Bobo doll. In some cases, the adult subjects hit the doll with a hammer or threw it in the air. Another group was shown an adult playing with the Bobo doll in a non-aggressive manner, and the last group was not shown a model at all, just the Bobo doll.
After each session, children were taken to a room with toys and studied to see how their play patterns changed. In a room with aggressive toys (a mallet, dart guns, and a Bobo doll) and non-aggressive toys (a tea set, crayons, and plastic farm animals), Bandura and his colleagues observed that children who watched the aggressive adults were more likely to imitate the aggressive responses.
The Learned Helplessness Experiment, 1965
Martin Seligman wanted to research a different angle related to Dr. Watson’s study of classical conditioning. In studying conditioning with dogs, Seligman made an astute observation: the subjects, which had already been conditioned to expect a light electric shock if they heard a bell, would sometimes give up after another negative outcome, rather than searching for the positive outcome.
The Milgram Experiment, 1963
In the wake of the horrific atrocities carried out by Nazi Germany during World War II, Stanley Milgram wanted to test the levels of obedience to authority. The Yale University professor wanted to study if people would obey commands, even when it conflicted with the person’s conscience.
Participants of the condensed study, 40 males between the ages of 20 and 50, were split into learners and teachers. Though it seemed random, actors were always chosen as the learners, and unsuspecting participants were always the teachers. A learner was strapped to a chair with electrodes in one room while the experimenter äóñ another actor äóñ and a teacher went into another.
The teacher and learner went over a list of word pairs that the learner was told to memorize. When the learner incorrectly paired a set of words together, the teacher would shock the learner. The teacher believed the shocks ranged from mild all the way to life-threatening. In reality, the learner, who intentionally made mistakes, was not being shocked.
As the voltage of the shocks increased and the teachers became aware of the believed pain caused by them, some refused to continue the experiment. After prodding by the experimenter, 65 percent resumed. From the study, Milgram devised the agency theory, which suggests that people allow others to direct their actions because they believe the authority figure is qualified and will accept responsibility for the outcomes. Milgram’s findings help explain how people can make decisions against their own conscience, such as when participating in a war or genocide.
The Halo Effect Experiment, 1977
University of Michigan professors Richard Nisbett and Timothy Wilson were interested in following up a study from 50 years earlier on a concept known as the halo effect. In the 1920s, American psychologist Edward Thorndike researched a phenomenon in the U.S. military that showed cognitive bias.
In 1977, Nisbett and Wilson tested the halo effect using 118 college students (62 males, 56 females). Students were divided into two groups and were asked to evaluate a male Belgian teacher who spoke English with a heavy accent. Participants were shown one of two videotaped interviews with the teacher on a television monitor. The first interview showed the teacher interacting cordially with students, and the second interview showed the teacher behaving inhospitably. The subjects were then asked to rate the teacher’s physical appearance, mannerisms, and accent on an eight-point scale from appealing to irritating.
Nisbett and Wilson found that on physical appearance alone, 70 percent of the subjects rated the teacher as appealing when he was being respectful and irritating when he was cold. When the teacher was rude, 80 percent of the subjects rated his accent as irritating, as compared to nearly 50 percent when he was being kind.
