Lecture 22: Critical thinking about psychological theories

Question 1

observations are …

Answer 1

theory laden. assumptions about the world/humans drive observations.

Question 2

wat is een voorbeeld van observations are theory laden

Answer 2

atomism: we denken dat mensen power hebben. -> assumption that we make about what power is, we think an explanation for the functioning of the research object can be found in the object itself. dus als je denkt dat power in een individual zit, of juist de verschillen tussen mensen. hoe je dit interpreteert, heeft een grote invloed op hoe je research doet. dus belangrijk om deze observations over theorie goed te specificeren

Question 3

relatie tussen smoking and covid

Answer 3

kuchen door smoking -> deciding to get a test <- kuchen door covid

dus deciding to get a test is een effect van beiden smoking en covid. daardoor zal het overgrote deel van de smokers niet echt covid hebben. dus als je kijkt naar de mensen die besluiten om te testen, zullen smokers overrepresented zijn. dus dan conditioning on a collider!!!

Question 4

good theory makes these assumptions….

Answer 4

visible and verifiable!

Question 5

wat zijn dus de drie redenen dat we duidelijke theory nodig hebben

Answer 5

1. observations are theory laden
2. technology/world situation influences our perceptions
3. te veel research papers, we need theory to integrate these results of different research findings

Question 6

wat laat de anova zien over theory

Answer 6

we gebruiken anova om psychologische dingen te testen, terwijl dit allemaal ja/nee vragen zijn. terwijl deze testen eigenlijk alleen zijn voor simpele hypothesen.

maar kunnen we deze hele cascade aan reacties wel op die manier testen? dit moet je duidelijk maken

Question 7

hoe ga je van theory naar hypothese

Answer 7

substantive hypothesis - research hypothesis - statistical hypothesis

Question 8

hoe ga je van substantive hypothesis naar research hypothesis

Answer 8

apply to the research context, more specific. maar goed beargumenteren waarom je dit denkt.

Question 9

je moet ook explicitly staten hoe je van research hypothesis naar statistical hypothesis gaat

Answer 9

want nhst is niet duidelijk. hier moet je echt voor beargumenteren!!
mensen assumen dat de null hypothesis testing het gouden standaard is. maar dat is niet zo, dus gebeurt vaak niet

Question 10

wat zijn dingen die fout waren aan het elderly onderzoek met langzaam lopen

Answer 10

• hypothesis myopia: er zijn andere explanations
• circular reasoning (walking slow <-> eldery concepts are activated)
• straw target

Question 11

The ideal is therefore a clear theory from which an experimental and statistical hypothesis is distilled by means of a number of logically powerful steps.

Answer 11

oke

Question 12

maar wat zien we vaak in de praktijk?

Answer 12

• Argumentation steps that are left implicit or are completely absent
• Misleading forms of argumentation that we should recognize from block 1 of this course
• 1. Begging the question/circular reasoning
• 2. Trading on equivocation
• 3. Confirming the Consequent
• 4. Null ritual: Straw target
• 5. Null ritual: False dilemma
• 6. Null ritual: Common practice

Question 13

wat zie je vaak bij circular reasoning

Answer 13

‘theory’ is an almost literal reformulation of
experimental findings, without further explanation

Question 14

Reformulation is not necessarily useless!

Answer 14

want soms is het goed om te generaliseren, en research findings aan elkaar connecten.

Question 15

“In concrete terms, activation of the professor
stereotype is expected to result in intelligent
behavior because activation of the professor
stereotype leads to activation of intelligence”

waar is dit een voorbeeld van

Answer 15

circular reasoning

Question 16

3 types of circular reasoning =

Answer 16

1. repeat the premisis (bananas)
2. premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion
3. premise is logically/semantically equal to the conclusion

Question 17

P The bible states that God exists
P The Bible is the Word of God.
C God exists

Answer 17

premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion

Question 18

P Jan reacts more quickly to aggression-related words
C Aggression-related words are more accessible in the long-term memory of Jan

Answer 18

premise is logically/semantically equal to the conclusion

Question 19

wat ging er mis met circular reasoning in het eldery studie ding

Answer 19

ze gingen van priming -> walking speed, zonder een tussenliggende theory.
priming is experiment, walking speed is observation: wat zit daar tussen??? dus dit is circular reasoning.

Question 20

Equivocation=

Answer 20

One-word explanations: The same word (without further additional assumptions) describes several underlying processes

Without further explanation you can predict opposite results.

Question 21

wat was de fallacy bij representativeness

Answer 21

• Hot hand fallacy: “Representativeness causes people to expect more good throws from people who have thrown a good series.
• Gamblers fallacy: Representativeness causes people to expect ‘black’ to be more likely after a long series of ‘red’.

representativeness is hier boven dezelfde term, waarbij verschillende resultaten kunnen worden predict (als je het niet verder uitlegt)
= trading on equivocation

Question 22

(1) Set up a statistical null hypothesis of “no mean difference” or “zero correlation.” Don’t specify the predictions of your research hypothesis or of any alternative substantive hypotheses.

waar is dit een voorbeeld van?

Answer 22

straw target

Question 23

(2) Use 5% as a convention for rejecting the null. If significant, accept your research hypothesis.

waar is dit een voorbeeld van?

Answer 23

common practice & false dilemma

Question 24

3) Always perform this procedure

waar is dit een voorbeeld van?

Answer 24

common practice

Question 25

kan je straw target uitleggen

Answer 25

dan maak je het argument van de ander zwakker, of distorted in het debat. turn it into something that is easily debunked.

Question 26

• Critical reader Jan: “Precognition cannot
  exist because it is not in line with the laws of
  nature/standard assumptions in other
  sciences.”
• Researcher Darryl: “If pre-cognition didn’t
  exist/standard assumptions in other sciences
  are correct, no groups would ever
  outperform random guessing on this funny
  computer task. I find a different proportion
  than 50% so pre-cognition does exist.”

Answer 26

straw target: the counter argument is boiled down to a very weak and distorted argument

Question 27

• Critical reader Jan: “The perception behavior
  link is not a scientific theory because it does not exclude any specific behavior from occuring.”
• Researcher John: “If PBL isn’t correct, then
  people would just walk towards the elevator at
  their usual speeds after doing this weird
  computer task, but they don’t.”

Answer 27

straw target

= weakened version of the counter argument

Question 28

null ritual: “either my theory is right or the null will not be rejected”

wat gebeurt hier?

Answer 28

false dilemma

Question 29

waarom is de null een false dilemma

Answer 29

It is unlikely (even in experimental designs) that there are no differences between two groups. This is what Meehl called the “Crud factor”

want… als je lang genoeg zoekt zul je binnen het sociale domein altijd wel een effect ergens vinden.

Question 30

wat zou beter zijn dan de null ritual

Answer 30

• Making predictions about ES that are consistent and inconsistent with the theory would be better.
• It would also be stronger to compare competing predictions

Question 31

waarom is de null ritual ook een straw target

Answer 31

Rejecting H0 and accepting your research hypothesis on finding any difference is not a stringent test of a theory.

(het is een weakened version van je argument!)

Question 32

hoe kan je hypothesis testing als deductive argument

Answer 32

if theory P, then observation Q
Q
then P

dit is affirming the consequent: je kan dit niet zeggen. het enige wat je kan doen is de theorie proberen te falsificeren, dit kan wel. maar je kan nooit een theory bewijzen.

Question 33

• P1 If the perception behavior link is correct,
  then people walk more slowly to the elevator
  after exposure to age-related words.
• P2 People walk more slowly to the elevator
  after exposure to age-related words
• C Perception behavior link is correct

Answer 33

confirming the consequent!!

Question 34

resultaten vinden betekent dus niet dat je theorie klopt

Answer 34

want dat is confirming the consequent

Question 35

wat als je via popper kijkt naar 4 studies, waarvan 2 een positief en 2 een negatief resultaat vonden

Answer 35

dan wegen de falsifications veel zwaarder dan de positieve resultaten.

Question 36

duhem-quine problem

Answer 36

P1 Substantive assumptions & assumptions about measurement & assumptions about research etc.
C1 If someone is in the exp condition, then higher score than in the contr condition.

je hebt al die assumpties, en je weet niet welke degene is die niet klopt. is het de assumptie over theory, over measurement???? we weten niet waar het fout is gegaan. dus je kan niet zomaar zeggen dat je meting niet klopte bij een nul resultaat. we testen namelijk niet alleen de theory, het is een groep van assumpties waarvan iets gefalsificeerd is (maar we weten niet wat!)

Question 37

you should always add another explanation!! no one sided explanation!!

Answer 37

oke

Question 38

wat was er met de caffeine shampoo

Answer 38

hypothesis myopia/confirmation bias:

washing your hair with caffeine extract, een simpelere explanation = washing your hair is good for your shininess (any shampoo would have that effect)

Question 39

people often jump to the most specific explanation, instead of going to the simpler one

Answer 39

(=caffeine)

Question 40

wat was er met mortality salience

Answer 40

ze probeerden uit te leggen waarom mensen meer usa vlaggen etc gingen kopen na 9/11, volgens mortality salience: mensen exposed to thoughts about own death, look for signals that assure you that you are part of the culture that goes on.

off……. lack of control (hierdoor meer dingen kopen)

Question 41

dus wat moeten we doen met parsimonious explanations en specifieke explanations?

Answer 41

eerste de parsimonious explanation falsificeren, voordat we de specifieke uitleg accepteren!

Question 42

abduction =

Answer 42

inference to the best explanation

Question 43

wat doen mensen meestal in science, in plaats van te falsificeren

Answer 43

A
B, if true, would best explain A
B

dus ze doen abduction. niet falsificatie. dit kan je eigenlijk alleen doen als je echt een robust phenomenon hebt

Question 44

thinking too much: introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. 2 theorieen

Answer 44

1. unconcious thought is better
2. conscious thought may backfire

Question 45

8 verschillende criteria voor het kiezen van de theorie die het beste past

Answer 45

1. descriptive adequacy
2. precision and interpretability
3. coherence and consistency
4. prediction and falsifiability
5. postdiction and explanation
6. parsimony
7. generative/original
8. breadth

Question 46

descriptive adequacy=

Answer 46

is the theory in line with the data

meest voor de hand liggende, er zijn vaak andere theorieen die het ook zouden kunnen uitleggen. dus verder kijken dan dit!

Question 47

wat is de emerald theory

Answer 47

• All emeralds are green, vs all emeralds are grue (green until 3333, then blue)

Question 48

wat laat de emerald theory zien

Answer 48

dat je altijd wel een andere theorie kan bedenken naast de theorie die je nu hebt (en dat descriptive adequacy dus niet genoeg is)

= identification problem

Question 49

identification problem =

Answer 49

the available data can be explained by an infinite number of models

Question 50

In the case of equal adequacy (or fit), other factors must be taken into account:

Answer 50

Prediction, postdiction, precision etc.

Question 51

2. precision =

Answer 51

formalizing your model leads to more precise theories.

verbal model vs formal model (meer specifiek)

Question 52

wat is een voorbeeld van precision

Answer 52

verbal theory: people are weird with money inschatten
formal theory: concave function, hoe meer mensen omhoog gaan, hoe minder ze het geld valuen

Question 53

Rescorla–Wagner model (“R-W”)

Answer 53

verbal:

• If a stimulus is followed by reinforcement, the relationship is strengthened (or weakened in case of negative reinforcement).
• ‘Cells that fire together wire together’ (Webb)
• Or even more vague: It is very difficult to learn something very well

formal:

ΔV=α(λ-V)

Question 54

waar staat alles voor in deze formule:

ΔV=α(λ-V)

Answer 54

V: current association strength (or strength of the connection
between two neurons)
* λ : maximum association strength (or maximum strength of the joint)
* α: learning speed (or how fast can the connection change?)

Question 55

dus wat zegt het RW model

Answer 55

it becomes increasingly difficult to become better at something

Question 56

wat is een nadeel aan formal models

Answer 56

overfitting!

er is namelijk een upper limit of how precise we should be, want anders niet meer generalisable naar andere dingen!!!

Question 57

overfitting =

Answer 57

the better the model fits the current data, the more likely it is that it does not fit the new data so well. -> simple/linear models are usually more robust

dus minder error comes at the cost of the generalizability (try to explain the noise!)

Question 58

overfitting decreases…

Answer 58

the generalizability of the model

Question 59

google flue

Answer 59

google fitted the data too well on the noise, waardoor het na een jaar niet meer predictable was voor andere dingen, zoals door nba (wat niet was in de lente)

Question 60

should we focus on predicting stuff or understanding stuff?

Answer 60

making predictions is a good check for how good your model is. sommigen zeggen dat we niet meer hoeven te understanden

Understanding such phenomena is relevant (but opinions are divided on this):
* Causal relationships should be invariant
* So predictions based on causal mechanisms would be more robust over different datasets

Question 61

bononi paradox

Answer 61

Increased complexity of the model can cause us to be able to better predict the outcome value, without a better understanding of what we are modelling.

Question 62

coherence =

Answer 62

het moet gewoon logisch op elkaar aansluiten.

Question 63

• Unconscious thinking is choice-relevant processes
  without attention
• A conscious thinking is a choice-relevant process
  with attention
• So distraction excludes conscious thinking
  (because no attention)
• But without distraction?
• No unconscious thinking?
• Why expect a difference?

waar is dit een vb van

Answer 63

coherence (incoherence)

Question 64

wat bedoelen we als we zeggen dat een theorie falsifiable moet zijn

Answer 64

• Make a specific statement about the circumstances in which it can be demonstrated that your theory is not correct.
• Subject your theory as much as possible to such circumstances
• Ensure that these tests are as stringent as possible

Question 65

waar moet je nog meer bij kijken voor falsifiability

Answer 65

the degree to which your theory is falsifiable: depends on how strict your test is, or how much you expose your theory to falsification.

Question 66

hoe maak je de degree van falsifiability hoger

Answer 66

• Specific predictions
• Contrast with alternative explanations -> Avoid null ritual
• Strong connection between theories and operationalisation

Question 67

A theory is more falsifiable if ….

Answer 67

it contains more ‘classes of falsifiers’.

Question 68

wat is dus het verschil tussen:
1. Choice quality depends on alcohol consumption
2. Alcohol consumption results in deteriorated choice quality
3. Only extreme alcohol consumption leads to deteriorated choice quality

Answer 68

de tweede is meer specifiek, en dus meer falsifiable.

Question 69

wat zei popper over 2 models en falsifiability

Answer 69

According to Popper, if two alternative models fit the data equally well, the specificity of the prediction (i.e. the degree of exposure to falsification) should be decisive.

Question 70

A theory that is more falsifiable (excludes more and has been tested in several different situations) has more …..

Answer 70

versimilitude

Question 71

you should prefer the theory that…

Answer 71

had a more specific prediction

Question 72

dus wat was er bij de unconscious/conscious theory aan de hand

Answer 72

de unconscious theory is niet parsimonious, veel te uitgebreid.

Question 73

Originality is less important than…

Answer 73

the fact that the theory works generatively:
* Does it generate new predictions?
* Is it an insightful new way to solve a difficult problem?

So if a new theory predicts exactly the same
thing as an old theory, there is no reason to
switch