Lecture 1 Flashcards
3 Criteria for Positivity
- Choice
- Pleasure
- Values
Choice criteria for positivity
Making a consistent choice in the same direction would show preference and thus it must be positive
Pleasure criteria for positivity
Our objective experience of a situation. This varies from person to person and can fluctuate over time
Values criteria for positivity
It appeals to some sort of system or logic for figuring out what is positive
Appreciation as PP def validity
Has some useful information as a guiding framework but it is a slippery slope
drawbacks of positive topics being PP def
Not a clear definition of what positive is, and there are positive aspects to almost anything
Family resemblance def of PP
PP is not one thing, but rather a collection of things that generally seem to point towards making lives better and have a positive aspect to them
Which 2 disciplines if psychology are most similar to PP?`
Humanistic and health psych
How is PP different from humanism
PP is more scientific and interested in what makes people in general more happy rather than an individual
How are PP and health psych similar and different
Similar: both look at health about being healthy, not just absence of illness
Different: PP is less concerned with physical health
What are 2 limitations and one benefit to correlational studies
Limit:- Directionality (which is the cause)
- Third variable problem
Benefits: More naturalistic
What is one way to get around the directionality problem?
Study something with a before and an after. The thing that occurred before would have to cause the thing that came after
2 limits and 1 benefit to experimental studies
limits: - “Confounds” like the third variable problem
- Often artificial setting
Benefit:
- Confident causal direction
What makes p values most unreliable
Small sample sizes
4 questionable research practices
- Multiple unreported dependent variables
- Adding statistical controls after the data collection depending on p
- Adding participants depending on p
- Dropping experimental conditions
Simulations say doing questionable research practices can create false positives ___% of the time
60%
What is one way to make p-values more consistent across repeated studies (like replications)
Use larger sample sizes
Rough definition of questionable research practices
Things that are not clear fraud, but they are questionable because they are intentionally distorting data to benefit them
Why might people engage in questionable research practices
Because there is a lot of pressure to publish and almost no null results are published, so people need to find positive results because jobs, funding and status ride on publications
Why are study replications important
Can have more confidence in the results because hopefully the replications found the same data
Exact (direct) replications
Make the study as similar to the original as possible (method, sample, analysis)
Why can it be hard to do exact replication studies
Because there are word limits in publications so minute details might be left out of the methods section
Conceptual replications
Not a re-do of the study, but a different design testing the legitimacy of the research question.
> > looking to see if it holds up in different contexts
What was the general design of the Reproducibility Project
Get new researchers to do old studies (while in contact with original researchers to get proper methods) and replicate the old study to see if they get the same result