Module 2- Getting Started in Research Flashcards
Validity
Fundamental index of quality for scientific research
Internal Validity
- confident that the IV is causing changes in the DV
- Tied to concepts of confounding variables and researcher control
External Validity
- ability to generalize findings to a larger population beyond the research context
- conclusions reflect the real world
- don’t want high control bc makes situation more artificial and does not reflect who the phenomenon naturally occurs
which type of validity do we want in research?
_ ideally want both Internal and External
- but not always possible ^ depending on the research question have to place more importance on one
experimental research- which validity is present?
- high levels of internal validity ; high control for confounds and determining cause
- low external validity; high control makes the situation more artificial and does not reflect the phenomenon in the real world
Descriptive research- which validity is present?
- low levels of internal validity; no control and not determining cause
- high external validity; examining phenomena in real world/ natural state ^ can generalize to a broader population. NO control
Inductive reasoning- Propositional Logic
- developing theories
- going from specific instances (empirical data) to general theories
- ex. Newton observed an apple falling and developed the theory of gravity
Deductive reasoning- Propositional Logic
- testing theories
- going from general theory to specific instances (empirical data)
ex. to test the theory of gravity by a falling feather
what reasoning is the foundation of science?
Deductible Reasoning; test a theory by gathering empirical data
Syllogism
specific type of argument
what is a syllogism made of?
- proposition; if p (antecedent) then q (consequent)
- observation; empirical data about the proposition
- conclusion; reached logically through reasoning the proposition and observation
Confirmatory Reasoning- Type of Syllogism
- observing the antecedent
- wanting to confirm the consequent
- if i am sad, then I cry
I sad sad, therefore I am crying - logically valid argument
- observed the antecedent and then it logically confirmed the consequent
Affirming the Consequent- Type of Syllogism
- Observing the consequent to make conclusion about antecedent
- if I am sad, then I cry
I an crying
therefore I am sad - not a logically valid argument
- tells us nothing about the antecedent
- can cry for other reasons
Disconfirming the Antecedent- Type of Syllogism
- observing the antecedent is not happening to make conclusions about the consequent
- if I am sad, then I cry
i am not sad
therefore I an not crying - not logically valid argument
- tells us nothing about the consequent
- can cry even if not sad
Disconfirmatory Reasoning- Type of Syllogism
- observing that the consequent is not present to make conclusions about the antecedent
- if I am sad, then I am crying
I am not crying
therefore, I am not sad - logically valid argument
- if cannot observe the consequent then can logically disconfirm the antecedent
what type of syllogism used for scientific knowledge?
- Disconfirmatory Reasoning
- how we scientifically test theories
Theories
General rules or principles we develop to explain phenomena
- can make predictions based on theories and test by theories to make syllogisms
- theory; antecedent
- prediction/ hypothesis; consequent
- disconfirmatory reasoning;
if no empirical evidence to support the theory/ prediction…
say based on disconfirmatory reasoning the theory is not supported by our research
if gather empirical evidence to support our hypothesis..
- cannot logically conclude theory to be true
Can prove theory..
- can never prove a theory to be true
- only can prove to be false
-RESEARCH CAN SUPPORT THEORIES, BUT NEVER PROVE THEN TO BE TRUE - BUT CAN REJECT/ PROVE THEM TO BE FALSE- disconfirmatory reasoning
why are theories accepted?
- bc we don’t yet have the evidence to reject them
- science= process of eliminating false theories
Science revolves around
- deductive reasoning
- testing theories by testing predictions based on those theories
theories developed by
- Inductive Reasoning
A good theory should…
- Explain the phenomenon; what we observe, predicts future events
- general; apply to a broad population
- parsimonious; simple, few causal factors and explanations
- Falsifiable
Falsifiable
- theory has to have the ability to be proven wrong
- ability to gather empirical data to prove the theory to be false bc can never prove a theory true
Steps of testing and developing theories
- theories developed by inductive reasoning
- predictions/ hypothesis are developed through deductive reasoning
- conduct research and empirical observations to test predictions/ hypotheses
Hypothesis
- guides our research
- best prediction of what happens when we support the theory
- outlines the relationship bw variables
-Tentative statement of what you expect to find in your research
A good hypothesis
- specific; relates to a specific situation and context
- concrete; makes a definitive statement of what you will predict to happen
- falsifiable; can gather empirical evidence to prove it to be false
Independent Variable
- manipulated by the researcher
- causes smthg to happen
Dependent Variable
- measured by the researcher
- change in DV is bc of IV manipulation
- supposed effect
Null Hypothesis
- No effect bw the variables
Marker Variables
- cannot directly access human experiences empirically
- an indirect way to measure internal experience
- behaviourally based
- cannot measure sadness empirically, but can use the marker variable of crying
Facts
- can be directly access and empirically measured
- in psych, this would be behaviours
Constructs
- cannot be directly access and empirically measured
- theoretical and abstract
- Do not exist in the real world; just things that have been constructed to explain our observations of human behaviour
- ex. cant access depression through our senses
- internal experiences
operational definitions
- Concrete representation of the theoretical construct that can be empirically measured
- translates the construct into a form that can be directly measured
- ex. studying happiness (construct), by facial expressions, body posture…
Construct Validity
- the extent to which we are measuring the construct we are interested in
- if no operational definitions= no construct validity
How many operational definitions do we want for a construct?
- want multiple, as many as possible
- from diff spheres of reactivity
- increases construct validity
What happens if have low construct validity?
- not measuring the construct of interest and therefore not measuring the hypothesis and theory
Reactivity
- tells us how much of the operational definition/ marker variable is under the research control
rate physiological, behavioural and self report on increasing reactivity
- Physiological Operational definitions; least under control of participant, more objective
- behavioural operational definitions; more reactive, more subjective
- self report; like a depression inventory
can one operational definition reflect multiple constructs?
Yes
- ex. crying might reflect happiness, sadness, frustration….
- each construct can be defined in multiple ways
