Midterm 1 Flashcards
What is Psychology?
A science based on evidence that studies the mind, brain, and behavior
Levels of analysis (3)
Lower levels: tied to biological influences (the brain)
Higher levels: tied to social and cultural influences (the mind)
ex: neurons to neighborhoods - study the bridges and roads and how they connect
Levels of Analysis (6)
Depression example
1. social
2. behavioral
3. mental
4. neurological/psychological
5. neurochemical
6. molecular
Levels of analysis - depression example
- social - loss of important personal relationships, lack of social support
- behavioral - decrease in pleasurable activities, move and talking slowly, withdrawal
- mental - depressed thoughts, sad feelings, suicidal thoughts
- neurological/psychological - differences among people in the size and functioning of brain structures related to mood
- neurochemical - differences in levels of brain chemistry
- molecular - variations in people’s genes that predispose depression
Five challenges of psychology
- human behavior are multiply determined
2.psychological influences are rarely independent - people differ from each other in thinking, emotion, personality, and behavior
- people influence each other = difficulty in pinning down root cause
- people’s behavior is shaped by culture
What’s the problem with trusting our common sense?
We never notice the contradictions until other people point them out to use
Nieve Realism
belief that we see the world precisely as it is
Scientific method in relation to relationship to empiricism
- the premise that all knowledge should initially be acquired through observation
-observation isn’t enough for psychological knowledge
theory vs hypothesis
theory: explanation for large number of findings in the natural world (ie. existing data, and putting ways we think to how things work)
hypothesis: testable prediction derived from a theory (used to accept/deny the theory)
theory vs strength of evidence
- theory is consistent with many differing
- theory doesn’t tell evidence
Role of biases in science
becoming aware of bias helps scientists compensate for them
confirmation bias
tendency to seek out evidence that supports our beliefs and deny, dismiss, or history evidence that contradicts them
belief perseverance
tendency to stick to our initial beliefs even when evidence contradicts them
metaphysical claims and their relation to scientific questions
assertion about the world that’s not testable
we can never test them about using scientific methods
pseudoscience
set of claims that seems scientific but isn’t
they are untestable and there lie outside the realm of science
warnings of pseudo science (8)
- exaggerated claims
- overuse of ad hoc hoc immunizing hypothesis
- over reliance on anecdotes
- absence of connectivity to other research
- lack of review by other scholars or lab replication
- lack of self-correction when contrary evidence is published
- “psychobabble” using terms that don’t make sense
- talk of proof instead of evidence
ad hoc immunizing hypotheses - psychic example
the psychic claimed to predict the future, this failed all controlled tests in the lab, but that’s because the experimenters inhibited his extrasensory powers
and escape hatch or loophole that defenders of a theory use to protect their theory from falsification
over reliance of anecdotes
this woman practiced daily yoga for three weeks and hasn’t had a day of depression since
lack of self-correction
although most scientists say that we use almost all of our brains, we’ve found a way to harness additional brain power previously undiscovered
emotional reasoning
error of using our emotions as guides for evaluating the validity of a claim
bandwagon
error of assuming that a claim is correct just because many people believe it
either or
error of framing a question as though we can only answer it one of two extreme ways
not me
error of believing we’re immune from errors in thinking that afflict other people
appeal to authority
error of accepting a claim merely because an authority endorses it
genetic (logical fallacy)
error of confusing the correctness of a belief with its origins
argument from adverse consequences
error of confusing the validity of an idea with its potential real-world consequences
appeal to ignorance
error of assuming that a claim must be true because no one has shown it to be false
naturalistic (logical fallacies)
error of inferring a moral judgement from a scientific fact
generalization (logical fallacies)
error of drawing a conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence
circular reasoning
error of basing a claim on the same claim reworded in slightly different terms
scientific skepticism
approach of evaluating claims with an open mind but insisting of persuasive evidence before accepting them
a willingness to keep an open mind to all claims
cynicism
implies a dismissal of claims before we’ve had the opportunity to adequately evaluate them
framework for scientific thinking (6)
- ruling out rival hypothesis
- correlation vs causation
- falsifiability
- replicability
- generalizability
- extraordinary claims
correlation vs causation
can we be sure that a causes b
falsifiability
can the claim be disproved
capable of being disproved in order for it to be meaningful
replicability
can the results be duplicated
when a study’s findings are able to be duplicated, ideally by independent investigators
generalizability
do these findings and conclusions reflect the diversity of the human experience
western educated industrialized rich democratic societies
extraordinary claims
is the evidence as strong as the claim
alien abduction can be true, but we should evaluate the claim
ruling out rival hypothesis
have important alternative explanations for the findings have been excluded
correlation versus causation, three ways correlation could be explained casually
- A-B, it is possible that a causes b
- B-A, it is possible that b causes a
- C causes both b and a
nature-nature debate
are our behaviors mostly to our genes or to our rearing environments
free will determinism debate
to what extent are our behaviors freely selected rather than caused by factors outside our control
most of even all of our behaviors are generated without conscious awareness
Intuitive thinking
types of snap judgements, quick and reflexive gut haunches
much of everyday life
analytical thinking
acquiring complex skills and habits
start with analytical thinking then move to intuitive like driving a car
heuristics
a mental shortcut or rule of thumb that helps us to streamline out thinking and make sense of our world
this is the connection between research design and analytical and intuitive thinking
Random selection
a procedure that ensures every person in a population has an equal chance of being chosen to participate
random selection in relation to generalizability
identifying a representative sample of the population, and administer survey drawn from that sample
what is reliability
consistency of measurement
if you do the same measurement, do you get the same result?
test-retest reliability
reliable questionnaire should yield similar scores over time
interrater reliability
extent to which different people who conduct and interview, or make behavioral observations, agree on the characteristics they’re measuring
ink-blot : two different therapists getting two different results on the same ink-blot
what is validity
extent to which a measure assess what is purports to measure
buying a package that says iPhone, but opening a watch
you measure what you think you’re measuring
connection between reliability and validity
reliability doesn’t guarantee validity
a test must be reliable to be valid, but a reliable test can be completely invalid (polygraph)
openness and transparency in science
requirement that they prove the research is replicable and reproducible
replicability
ability to duplicate the original findings consistently
reproducibility
ability to review and reanalyze the data from a study and find exactly the same results
replication crisis (4)
open science movements was inspired by failure to confirm a number of high-profile findings
lack of replicability mean building on shaky ground
replication problems don’t appear to reflect deliberate corruption or fraud
studies built off of each other too quickly without the actual truth - the halo affect can overshadow everything else in the experiment
the steps being taken to address the replication crisis (5)
- posting and sharing research material
- conducting replications of their own and other’s work
- pre-register research which induces publicity posting scientific process
- encourage editors of scientific journal to publish all sound evidence
- place less emphasis on the findings or single studies, no matter how novel or intriguing and more emphasis on systematic review
File drawer problem
Rosenthal coined this term to refer to when nonsignificant results are left unpublished
what is naturalistic observation
watching behavior in real-world setting without trying to manipulate the situation
naturalistic observation strengths and weaknesses
high in external validity - extend to which we can generalize findings to real world settings
low in internal validity - doesn’t allow us to infer causation, extent to which we draw cause and effect inferences from a study
what are case study designs
research design that examines one person of a small number of people in depth, often over an extended time
the role of case studies in studying rare phenomena
opportunity to study without recreation in a laboratory
people with atypical symptoms or rare types of brain damage
case studies role on generating hypotheses
can offer useful insights that researches can follow up on a test in systematic investigations
self-report measures and surveys
- asking person the questionnaire directly (opinions, attitudes, personality traits)
- easy and cheap to administer
- addresses blind spots, but has halo effect
Correlational Designs
range in value -1.0 to +1.0
-1.0 is a perfect negative correlation
+1.0 is a perfect positive correlation
Illusory correlations/correlation vs causation
perception of a statistical association between two variables where none exists
full moon and murder correlation, but ignores times when murder happens when it’s not a full moon
fourfold of life
- full moon and crime happened
- full moon but no crime
- no full moon and crime happened
- no full moon but no crime
Experimental designs
doesn’t allow us to draw cause-and-effect conclusions
BUT they permit experiments
Random assignment
experimenter randomly sorts participants into one of two groups
this cancels out preexisting differences between two groups (race, gender, personality traits)
how we assign our participants after we’ve already chosen them
experimental group
the group of participants that receives the manipulation
control group
the group of participants that does not receive the manipulation
random selection
a procedure that allows every person an equal chance to participate
how we choose our participants
independent variable
manipulated
dependent
measured
depends on the independent
confounding variable
any variable that differs between the experimental and control groups other than the independent variable
correlational vs experimental study (chocolate milk study)
correlational: researchers merely examined how much chocolate milk people typically drink and examined whether that variable is associated with liver and cancer risk
experimental: participants were randomly assigned to drink lots of chocolate milk or not
placebo affect
improvement resulting from mere expectation of improvement
double blind research
neither the participant or researcher knows whether the participant is in experimental or control
ELIMINATES BIAS
demand characteristics
cues that participants pick up from a study that allow them to generate guesses regarding the researcher’s hypothesis
mean
average, measure of central tendency
median
middle score in a data set
mode
most frequent score in a data set
variability
measure of how loosely of tightly bunched score are
standard deviation
how far each data point is from the mean
inferential statistics
mathematical methods that allow us to determine how confident we are that we can generalize findings from our sample to the full population
statistical significance and the meaning of p<0.05
probability of results by chance alone is 5 in 100
meta analysis
statistical method that analyzes effects across studies to determine consistent patterns of results
practical significance
Real world importance
sharpening
tendency to exaggerate the gist/central message of a study
leveling
tendency to minimize the less central details of a study
EEG
electroencephalograph
measures electrical activity as the surface of the skull
EEG strengths and weaknesses
s - non invasive, using in human and non-human studies
w - doesn’t tells us a littler deeper or in different regions because it only measures the surface
MRI
magnetic resonance imaging
structural detail measuring release of energy from water in biological tissues following exposure to magnetic field
CT
computed tomography
3D imaging, reconstruction of multiple x-rays
PET
positron emission tomography
measures changes in brain activity in response to stimuli
fMRI
functional MRI
uses magnetic field to visualize brain activity using changes in blood oxygen level
brain increased oxygenated blood when brain activity quickens
ways people can misinterpret brain scans
images are produced by subtracting brain activity on a control test from brain activity on experimental tasks