Midterm Exam Flashcards
Stanley Milgram Paper (1963)
Obedience & How it relates to the ability to Harm
Author Name: Stanley & Milgram
Background: atrocities during WW2, what motivates humans to harm others, relationship between authority and capacity to harm.
Hypothesis: Most people wouldn’t go to the danger zone, only a few might. We fundamentally underestimate our capacity to harm when following orders.
Main Structure: fake experiment (memory test), 3 people (experimenter, subject/teacher, victim learner)
Methods: subject must administer shocks in memory test (danger done). At 300 volts the learner stops answering and pounds for help, silence is considered wrong, and if the subject hesitates they are given encouragement.
IV: N/A
DV: the highest shock level the teacher would go to without stopping.
Results: We abandon out values to obey authority, and we will try to justify these actions.
Critiques:
- causes emotional distress
- more diversity / larger sample size
-clear instructions and guidelines to minimize confusion and risk
Hard (or Natural Sciences) vs. Social Sciences is there a difference?
Hard science: Physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology
explanation , understanding, and predictability through observation and experimentation
Social sciences: Psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and political science
Why do we study psychology? And why do we study research methods in psychology?
- To understand human behavior
- To understand ourselves as individuals
- To understand others
- Interventions: counciling, family therapy, risky behaviors, education (in school), training (on the job), political psychology
- A solid foundation for other psychology courses
-Other psychology courses are about content…
-…but research methods is about process
-We see how sound, scientific research is conducted
-We learn how to do our own research to answer our own questions
-We are better able to read and understand the research of others
-We learn how to be skeptical of other research
-We learn how to adapt and apply existing research findings to our own specific situation - We learn how to communicate about research in speaking and in writing
-Writing APA style
-speaking-Professional Presentations
-Posters-Scientific Presentations
-The Charter of W&M
-we read good science and write good science and discuss good science we will learn to do good science
-“If you read junk, watch junk, and eat junk, you will be junk” - Rev Jessie Jackson
-Professional Development - graduate school
Ways of Knowing
The liberal arts
Grammar, logic, and rhetoric (the trivium)
Arithmetic, geometry, the theory of music, and astronomy (the quadrivium)
Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially the methods, validity, and scope of knowing. An understanding of what differentiates justified belief from opinion
Ways of knowing authority: authority
Basing our beliefs on what we are told by others
Examples? (parents, teachers, textbooks)
Authority brings stability and consistency and can be very beneficial, especially if knowledge gained is brand new
Problem: authorities can be wrong!
Ways of Knowing: Reason / Logical Argument
- Use of reason via conversation (discourse) to come to a consensus
- Uses the a priori method
a. Based on argument and logic, not direct experience
b. Denoting conclusions derived from premises or principles - Problems:
a. Our initial assumptions may be incorrect
b. By using reason/logic alone, we have no way to check the accuracy of our assumptions
c. Valid logical arguments can lead to opposite conclusions
Ways of Knowing: Empiricism / Direct Experience
- Process of learning via direct observation or experience
- problems:
a. Experiences are limited to our interpretations of them
b. Experiences can be influenced by social cognition bias - Confirmation bias
- Belief perseverance
- Availability heuristic
Attributes of Scientific Thinking in Psychology
- Determinism: is our behavior pre-determined?
- Are people like moving objects and can the behavior of humans be predicted by psychology in the same way that the movement of objects can be predicted by physics?
- Statistical or probabilistic determinism- events can be predicted but only as probabilities
- Objectivity - eliminating any bias from our own experimentation
- Other researchers should be able to verify our results through replication
- In order to make replication possible our publications need to be clear - especially the method section
- Scientific research in psychology must be based on what is observable
- Makes systematic observations
a. Less affected by bias than everyday observations - Produces public knowledge
a. Objectivity criterion - Agreement by two or more observers
b. Example → from introspection to behaviorism - Behaviorism (Watson)
- Sound scientific research in psychology is data-driven
- Here is my datum (singular)
- is my data (plural)
- Stadium, aquarium, colloquium, etcium
- I followed the Red Sox to several American League stadia
Scientific Conclusions (and therefore social conventions) are Subject to Revision
- The earth is flat
- The sun travels around the earth
- Airplanes can fly no faster than the speed sound
- Only men should have the right to vote
- Some races are inferior and should be made slaves to others (Eugenics and the Holocaust)
- Some races should be exterminated for the overall benefit of society
- War is an inevitable state in the relation between nations
Science as a Way of Knowing
- Produces tentative conclusions
a. findings subject to outcomes of future research - Asks answerable questions
a. Empirical questions (i.e answerable with data based on the use of valid scientific methods) - Develops theories that can be falsified
a. Falsification criterion
*scientists (i.e psychologists) are skeptical optimists!
We Study Empirical Questions
- While we may be attempting to answer questions about how people think, we conduct our studies by examining empirical questions
- We structure our research so our questions are empirical and can be answered through observation
- Not all questions (especially broad and important ones) can be answered empirically - but we try!
Social Problems that Need to be Addressed through Psychological Research
- Inequality and injustice in society
- Inequality and injustice in the world
- Migration and the plight of refugees
- Pollution, global warming, and climate change
- The high incarceration rate in the US
- Gun violence
- Eating disorders
- Impoverishment in all the forms that it takes
Psychology vs. Pseudoscience
- Read our Goodwin book…or see Ghost Busters
“- False science” - literally - Textbook examples → phrenology and graphology
- Compared to true science, pseudoscience
a. Associates itself with real science - Tries to appear legitimate
b. Relies heavily on anecdotal evidence - Ignores counter instances
- Results from effort justification
c. Sidesteps falsification - Avoids falsification by explaining away anomalies
d. Reduces complex phenomena to overly simplistic concepts
The Goals of Research in Psychology
- describe
a. Identify regularly occurring sequences of psychological events (e.g behaviors, thoughts, emotions, ect.) - predict
a. Psychological events follow certain “laws” that are regular and therefore predictable - Explain
a. Psychological events are explained in terms of their relationship to other factors
b. Causal explanations are ideal - apply
a. Science informs real-world applications of psychological events - Controlling behavior (?_…
a. B.F. Skinner Beyond Freedom and Dignity
Controlling Behavior?
- How about instead, influencing behavior
a. Learning - Education in schools and training on the job;
b. Early intervention
c. Rehabilitation, socialization, and training of convicted criminals (problems with recidivism):
d. Self-acceptance
e. Marketing
f. Avoiding risky or dangerous behaviors
g. Influencing people through persuasion instead of forcing them through threats
Scientific Thinking in Psychology
- Psychology is a science and adheres to the assumptions and goals of science
- Science distinguishes itself from pseudoscience by being systematic, empirical, data-driven, tentative, and falsifiable
- As psychological scientists, we strive to describe, predict, explain, and apply what we discover from our research
Overmier & Seligman Article (1967)
Dog Electric shock through the floor; learned helplessness
Author Name: Overmier & Seligman
Background: researchers wanted to see if learned helplessness would happen after being exposed to previous shock in different time periods
Hypothesis: After exposure, when shocked they would give up
Main Structure: 3 experiments
-initial shock exposure
- seeing if twitching helped with shock exposure (similar results)
- varying time in between shocks
Methods
- strapped dogs in so they couldn’t move
- shocked them from floor
- paralyzed some to stop twitching
IV: the pre trial exposure to shocks with the intensity and duration of and between shocks
DV: how the dogs reacted to the shock from the floor; if they laid down and accepted to shocks or if they escaped
Results: dogs experience learned “helplessness” where they believed there was nothing they could do to get out based on their past experiences.
Critiques:
- different settings between treatment and performance task
- differing apparatuses for shock treatment
no internal control group for experiment 2
- minimal shock intensity difference between “high intensity” condition and treatment condition
Developing the APA Code of Ethics
- Historical cases of ethically questionable research
a. Watson & Rayner (1920)- scaring little albert
b. McGraw (1941)- effects of repeated pinpricks
c. Dennis (1941)- raising children in isolation - First code → 1953
a. Hobbs committee
b. Critical incidents techniques - APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
a. 2002 (2010 amendments)
APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
- Guidelines for ethical behavior for the practice of research, clinical work, and teaching in psychology
- Applies to all of us in the field of psychology
- Code contains:
a. 5 general principles
b. 10 standards of practice
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
5 General Principles APA
- Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
a. Constantly weigh costs & benefits; protect from harm; produce for greatest good - Fidelity and Responsibility
a. Be professional; constantly be aware of responsibility to society - Integrity
a. Be scrupulously honest - justice
a. Always treat people fairy - Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity
a. Safeguard individual rights; protect rights of privacy and confidentiality
10 Sections on Ethical Guidelines
Section 1: Resolving Ethical Issues
Section 2: Competence
Section 3: Human Relations
Section 4: Privacy and Confidentiality
Section 5: Advertising and Other Public Statements
Section 6: Record Keeping and Fees
Section 7: Education and Training
Section 8: Research and Publication
Section 9: Assessment
Section 10: Therapy
Ethical Guidelines for Research with Humans
Standard 8: Research and Publication
a. Several particular points, all of which fall under the General Principles. Some highlights:
- Identify potential risks
- Protect participants from physical and psychological harm
- Justify remaining risks
- Obtain informed consent
- Take care of participants after the study (debriefing)
Weighing benefits and costs: the IRB
- IRB = Institutional Review Board
- Determines whether the project meets ethical guidelines
a. Some research is exempt from review
b. Some research gets an expedited review
c. Some research requires a full review - Key factor: degree of risk to subjects
a. No risk (could be exempt)
b. Minimal risk (expedited)
c. At risk (full) - Issues: judging methodological adequacy, no appeal, anti-basic research, overly cautious
- Informed consent
a. Sufficient information provided to research participants to decide whether to participate - Historic examples of poor consent
a. Tuskegee syphilis study
b. Willowbrook hepatitis study
c. MK-ULTRA (CIA & LSD) - Deception in Research
a. Desire to have subjects act naturally
b. Milgram obedience study as an example - Cover story → effect of punishment on learning
- Real purpose → limits of obedience to authority
-No consent needed in some circumstances
a. Some survey, educational, archival, and observational research
Elements APA
- Study’s basic description
a. Enough information to decide whether to participate - How long participation will take
- May quit at any time
- Confidentiality and anonymity ensured
- Contact information given (researcher, IRB)
- Opportunity to obtain final results of the study
- Signatures
Conent with Special Populations
children
- Parental assent also needed
Children and other special groups (e.g prisoners)
- Special care to avoid feelings of coercion
Treating Participants Well
Debriefing
- Dehoaxing
- Desensitizing
- Confidentiality
- Participant crosstalk
a. Code allows partial debriefing followed by full report at completion of the study
Research ethics and the internet
- Problems with ensuring consent
- Problems with conducting effective debriefing
Ethical Guidelines for Research with Animals
- Animal rights
a. Not a new issue - Using animals in psychology research
a. Miller- aids both humans and animals - The APA Code for animal research
a. Justifying the study
–>Cost-benefit analysis
b. Caring for the animals
–>E.g expertise with species
c. Using animals for educational purposes
–>Minimize
Scientific Fraud
- Plagiarism
- “The presentation, with intent to deceive, or with disregard for proper scholarly procedures of a significant slope, of any information, ideas or phrasing of another as if they were one’s own without giving
appropriate credit to the original source (William and Mary Honor Code) - Safe Assign
- Falsifying Data
a. Cases: Diedrick Stapel, b. Stephen Breuning
Varying degrees (all unethical)
c. reasons
–>Range from individual weakness to societal moral standards
–> Publish or perish climate in academia
Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
Cognitive Dissonance
Author Name: Festinger & Carlsmith
Background: To examine and measure levels of cognitive dissonance in relation to forced compliance
Hypothesis: the higher the reward the higher level of cognitive dissonance. Thought 1$ would be most positive
Main Structure
- The participants were introduced to the experimenter
-Hour long experiment
- Interview afterwards
Methods:
- groups completed 2 tasks (s0me told it was fun before hand)
- false debriefing: told that experiment information about it being fun affected performance as goal
- then proceed to interview where either given no money OR given money AND was tried to convince it was fun (paid to lie)
- Post -experiment questions
IV: quantity of reward
DV: level of cognitive dissonance
Results:
Unpaid Control
- (-0.45)
Paid $1
- (1.35)
- Rationalized due to no other justification
Paid $20
- (-0.5)
- Rationalized due to money
Critiques:
- very little diversity
- final interview was assumed to be truthful
- sense of self-importance may have skewed viewers
- more varying rewards
Varieties of psychological research
- The goals: basic versus applied research
- Basic
a. Designed to understand fundamental psychological phenomena
b. Example → stimulus factors affecting selective attention - Applied
a. Designed to shed light on the solution to real-world problems
b. Example → effect of cell phone use on driving
c. Example → how to motivate people to wear masks and get vaccinated for covid. - Basic (Theory)
a. Designed to understand fundamental psychological phenomena
b. Describing
c. Predicting
c. Explaining - applied
a. solving real world problems
b. Education
c. Poverty
d. Risky behavior
e. Job performance
The laboratory vs the Field
Lab
a. Focus on the independent variable
b. Measure the dependent variab;e
c. Controlling extraneous variables
d. More scientific
e. But is artificial
Field
a. More realistic
b. Real-world validity
c. Issue of ethics and privacy
d. Participants may self-select
Quantitative vs. Qualitative research
- Quantitative
a. Data collection
b. More “scientific” - qualitative
a. Anecdotal
b. Focus groups
c. Opinion
d. More “rich” human data - Operational Definitions
a. How will you know if you see it?
b. How can you operationalize behavior?
c. A strict and valid operational definition will add clarity and definition to research
d. It should be logical and understandable
e. It should be observable and measurable
Asking Empirical Questions
- Empirical questions
a. Answerable with data
b. Terms precisely defined - Operational definitions
a. Variables defined in terms of clearly specified set of operations
–> Hunger = 12 hours without food
–> Frustration = consequence of being blocked from a goal - Converging operations
a. Understanding increases as a studies with different operational definitions “converge” on the same result
Developing Research from Serendipity
- Serendipity: discovering something while looking for something else entirely, has been a source of numerous important events in the history of science
- real - world events
- Seize the moment, people have short memories
- How people react to recent events
- Kitty Genovese
- September 11, 2001
- Popular movies
- COVD19
- BLM
- January 6th assault on the Capital
parsimony principle
is basic to all science and tells us to choose the simplest scientific explanation that fits the evidence.
Developing Research from theory
- The nature of theory
a. Summarizes, organizes, explains, provides basis for predictions
–>Includes constructs → hypothetical factors involved in the attempt at explanation
–>E.g cognitive dissonance - The relationship between theory and research
a. hypotheses deducted from theory
b. Outcomes / data provide or fail to provide inductive support for theory
–> Theories are never “true” nor “false”
Developing Research from other Research
- Replication
a. Direct replication
–>A reproduction of the exact study procedures as the original study
b. Conceptual replication
–>A partial replication, with new features added to extend the original study’s findings - Ethics Box
a. Questionable research practices and replication remedies
Reviewing the Literature
Computerized database searches
- In psychology → PsychINFO
a. Most recent info → www.apa.org/psychinfo
- Search results
a. Advanced search option (use of multiple search terms)
b. Using truncated search terms to avoid being too narrow
c. Being strategy → trial and error, expand and contract
- Computerized database searches
a. Search results
–> Results lists begins with most recent research
–> Take note of source (e.g journal article, book, dissertation)
You may limit your search by date or source too
–> Read abstracts provided when you click on the title
Getting the Most out of reading journal articles
- Get as much as possible from the abstract
- Look for the general statement of the problem in the opening paragraph
- Look in the introduction for existing theories
- Near the end of the introduction look for the hypotheses
- In the method section look for who is being tested
- In the method section look for the procedure
- Understand the data in the results section
- Look in the discussion section for an explanation of the results and how the results answer the original question
Developing research from theory
10 steps of research
Attributes of good theories
- They should advance knowledge
- They should be subject to falsification
- They should be parsimonious
a. Minimum number of constructs
b. Minimum number of assumptions - They should solve real-world problems
- “There is nothing so useful as a good theory” Kurt Lewin (?)
Developing Research from other research
- Building programs of research
- Using findings of one study as beginning for another
- Explaining contradictions in publications
- Asking “what next”
- Applying to other settings
- Replication and extension
Reviewing the literature
- Using other people’s results as a beginning for our research
- Other people’s data bases
Dutton & Aron (1974)
Some Evidence of Heightened Attraction under high anxiety conditions
Author Name: Dutton & Aron
Background: Previous research suggests that sexual attraction occur more frequently when in states of strong emotion
Hypothesis: The aim of this study was to test the idea that “an attractive female is seen as more attractive by males who encounter her while they experience a strong emotion (fear) than by males not experiencing a strong emotion.”
Main Structure
- Experiment 1 tried to verify this link between emotion and sexual attraction in a nature
- Experiments 2 and 3 were conducted in order to clarify and test the validity of the results of the first experiment
Methods:
Experiment #1
- Men crossing a bridge were approached by an interviewer
- asked to write a story about a picture of a sad woman
- stories scored for sexual content
- interviewer offered number (difference in caller indicates attraction)
- asked to rate control bridge vs scary
Experiment #2
- repeated to make sure population sample was good
- verified result of #1
Experiment #3
- laboratory setting where they expected painful or no painful shock & woman in other room
IV: amount of stress/ anxiety
DV: indicated attractiveness
Results
- male subjects on scary bridge more attracted than control
- Higher anxiety reported when the subject anticipated a powerful shock
- Subjects who expected a high shock with a female confederate present showed less anxiety than subjects in the control (two male subjects run at the same time)
- ANOVA showed significant main effect for subjects expecting strong shock to attraction ratings
-TAT sexual imagery scores were found to be higher when both the subject and the female confederate were expecting a strong shock
- support hypothesis
Critiques
- definition of arousal was ambiguous
- type of anxiety (real & expecting)
- subjects not randomly selected
- consistency in interviewing should have been established
- diversity of participants (assumed to be heterosexual cisgender males)
- beauty is subjective
An introduction to Logic
Inductive reasoning
a. Going from specific to the general (based on research)
b. An inductive generalization
Deductive reasoning
a. Going from the general to the specific
b. A deductive argument (a proof)- proven
*look for premise and Logic
Essential Features of Experimental Research
Mill’s inductive logic
- Method of agreement
a. If X, then Y (sufficient → x is sufficient for Y)
- Method of difference
a. If not X, then not Y (necessity → X is necessary for Y)
- Together → X is necessary & sufficient for producing Y
a. Agreement :Analogous to experimental groups
b. Difference: Analogous to control group
A logical Argument (AKA a Syllogism)
- Premise → all birds lay eggs
- Premise → an eagle is a type of bird
- Conclusion → eagles lay eggs
If the premises are true and the logic is sound, then the conclusion must follow.
Is this an inductive generalization or a deductive argument?
What is/are the premises and what is/are the conclusions?
Because triangle A is congruent with Triangle B, and Triangle A is isosceles, it follows that triangle B is isosceles
deductive
Is this an inductive generalization or a deductive argument?
What is/are the premises and what is/are the conclusions?
The coffee, tea, and quiche at Aromas are all excellent. The likely conclusion is that entities on the menu are excellent.
inductive
Is this an inductive generalization or a deductive argument?
What is/are the premises and what is/are the conclusions?
Sherlock Holmes observed that since there were several watchdogs sleeping in the stable that night, and yet, though someone had been in and stolen Blaze, the horse, the dogs had not barked enough to arouse the two lads on the loft. Obviously, concluded Holmes, the thief was someone the dogs knew well.
deductive
Conditional Statements
If (antecedent) then (consequent) OR (consequent) and (antecedent)
A conditional statement is not in itself an argument, but it may serve as either the promise or conclusion (or both) of an argument
Modus Ponens (the way that affirms by affirming)
Affirming the antecedent (valid)
If P, then Q. P → therefore Q
ex.
If my hamster have birth then it must be female
My pet hamster has given birth
Therefore, It must be female
Invalid form of Modus Ponens
- the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent
- If P, then Q. Q → therefore P
- ex.
a. Students who participate in group study sessions do well on exams
b. Sam did well on the exam
c. Sam participated in a group study session
Modus Tollens (the way that denies by denying)
- denying the consequent: valid
- If P, then Q. Q → therefore P
- ex.
a. If i owned property in Manhattan today I would be rich
b. I am not rich
c. Therefore, I don’t own property in Manhattan
Invalid forms of Modus Tollens
- The logical fallacy of denying the the antecedent
- If P, then Q. P → Therefore Q
- ex.
a. If I owned property in manhattan today, I would be rich
b. I don;t own property in Manhattan today
c. Therefore I am not rich
Is this a valid argument?
Premise: if you water the grass, it will be wet
Premise you: watered the grass
Conclusion: it must be wet
Yes (affirming the antecedent)
Types of reinforcement: giving or taking away
Statistical Analysis
Visual displays of data
–> CNN example - beware the Y-axis
Null hypothesis significance testing
2 possible outcomes
- Reject the null hypothesis (with some probability)
a. Conclude you found a significant relationship between variables
- Fail to reject the null hypothesis
a. Conclude you found no significant relationship between variables
Because you are testing a sample and making inferences about the population, your statistical decisions have a probability of being wrong!
- Possible errors
a. Type 1 → reject null hypothesis, but be wrong
b. Type 2 → fail to reject null hypothesis, but be wrong
Interpreting failures to reject null hypothesis
- Extreme caution: This does not mean it is “proven false”
- May be useful if the outcome is replicated
a. Example → questions a claim for the effectiveness of some new therapy; useful if studies consistently show lack of effect of therapy
Publication bias and the file drawer effect
The journal of non significant results
- Beyond null hypothesis significance testing
- Effect size
a. Emphasizes the size of difference between variables, not merely whether there is a difference or not
b. Useful for meta-analysis
- Confidence intervals
a. Range within which population mean likely to be found
- Power
a. Chance of rejecting a false null hypothesis
–>Sample size an important factor
Using both manipulated subject and subject IVs
Bandura’s Bobo study
- Manipulated → type of exposure to violence
- Subject → gender
Threats to Internal Validity
How do we prevent uncontrolled extraneous factors from reducing internal validity
Pre-post studies
History and maturation
Regression
Testing and instrument
A very Simple Approach to Research (10 steps to research)
- Form a question in your mind
- A construct
- Why do people behave this way?
- How can we explain it?
- What causes this? - Form hypotheses
- Null hypothesis: no effect
a. There is no difference
b. Mean 1= mean 2
- Alternative hypothesis: effect
a. There is a difference
b. Mean 1 =(NOT) mean 2- Operationalize the question
- independent
a. We manipulate the IV - dependent
a. We measure the DV - extraneous variables (confounding variables)
a. We control the EV
- independent
- Determine your sample
- The population and the sample
- Representative
- random
- Run your experiment and make observations
- In some ways this is the easiest part of the process. But it can be very time consuming.
- Record your data
- Measurement
- We often realize afterward that we didn’t record something (i.e age, sex, gender, education, etc.)
- Analyze the data using statistics
- What is the likelihood we would see a difference this great due to chance alone
a. Does mean 1 = mean 2 or does
b. Mean 1 =(NOT) mean 2 - Do we reject the null, hypothesis, or do we fail to reject it?
- The .05 and .01 alpha level
- Type 1 error: finding a difference when in fact none exists
- Type 2 error: failing to find a difference when in fact it does exist
*Hypothesis Testing
- What is the likelihood we would see a difference this great due to chance alone
- Make inferences based on the analysis of your data
a. Make generalizations based on what you see
b. Apply this to broader issues - not just the lab - Form conclusions and answer your original question
a. Return to the original question posed in the beginning of the research and…
b. Pose additional questions for future research - Build your conclusions into a theory
a. See if it is possible to expand your conclusions into a broader and more systematic theory
- Operationalize the question
Noise Curve
For most any sensory modality – sight, smell, sound, etc. – there will be some background “noise” e.g. distracting background light, scents in the air, background sound, etc. The intensity of this background noise may vary and this variance will often follow the normal distribution. The most frequent levels of intensity will be in the midrange, with extremely high and low levels of intensity occurring less frequently.
- Noise can be anything we can sense
The Signal Plus Noise Curve
When a signal is present the strength of the signal is added to the level of the background noise, producing the signal plus noise curve.
- It displaces the curve to the right (adding signal displaces to the right by intensity of the signal)
Establishing the detection threshold
A Detection Threshold is the level of intensity above which the signal will be detected, but below which it will not be detected. The Detection Threshold may be deliberately set or may default to the minimum point at which a signal may be detected.
- We must be able to differentiate a. 4 things: Hit, miss, correct nondetection, and false alarm
The hit
When there actually is a signal and the intensity of the signal is above the Detection Threshold, the signal will be perceived. This is a Hit.
- To the right of the threshold AND in a place under the signal + noise curve
Two right responses: hit or correct nondetection (CND)
When there actually is no signal – only background noise – and the intensity is below the Detection Threshold, there will be no perception of a signal. This is Correct Nondetection.
False Alarm
When there actually is no signal – only background noise – but the intensity is above the Detection Threshold, there will be a false perception of a signal. This is a False Alarm.
- Above my threshold but it was just noise
A Miss
When there actually is a signal but the intensity of the signal is below the Detection Threshold, the signal will not be perceived. This is a Miss.
- There was a signal, and i missed it
Sometimes we are presented with an easy decision
Sometimes there can be a separation between the Noise Curve and the Signal Plus Noise Curve. This is the case where the signal is very clear/intense and there can be no mistaking it. Where do we position our threshold in a case like this?
- We will only get hit & correct detection, but NEVER a false alarm or miss
If the curves are separated place the threshold between them
If there is a space between the Noise Curve and the Signal Plus Noise Curve, place the threshold between them and get only……..Hits and Correct Nondetections.
Where do we set our threshold if the two curves significantly overlap?
If the curves overlap we must decide where to place our threshold. What happens if we raise or lower the threshold?
How does signal detection theory parallel hypothesis testing?
