research/ethics link+evaluation Flashcards
research
brain and behaviour
Passmonti et al
link:
Isolated the IV (tryptophan lacking drink) so it is the only factor affecting the DV(brain activity) which demonstrates a casual relationship.
–
Lack of ecological validity
Research expectancy effect?
Age - generalizability towards children as children are still developing and may have different activation/reaction towards tryptophan?
mundane reality - fmri less genuine of a reaction
research
brain and behaviour
Feinstein
Link:
Did an in depth study on a single person with a unique condition. Used research obtained to identify the relationship between parts of the brain and behavior.
-
One person → low reliability and validity
Lack of generalizability (we don’t know how it would affect a person with a normal brain)
many extraneous variables
research
hormones and behaviour
Radke
link
Isolate the IV (testosterone shot) so it was the only factor affecting the DV (amygdala activation) which helps to more clearly demonstrate a casual relationship.
–
Participant validity - females
Males are biologically different in terms of levels of testosterone, so they may be more or less responsive to extra testosterone.
Mundane reality, done in an fmri
research
hormones and behaviour
Enhrenkranz
Link: Shows link between testosterone and aggressive behavior and social dominance -- Shows correlation not causation Lack of control Doesn’t account for other variables that affects the relationship Lack validity Prone to researcher expectancy bias
research
individual and group
Bandura
link:
Isolated the IV(punching the doll) so it is the only factor affecting the DV(kid’s behavior). Controlled all extraneous variables to show a cause and effect relationship.
In this individual and group experiment, the behavior displayed to the children was manipulated to observe the effects it had on the child’s behavior. By doing a true experiment, it was able to control extraneous variables such as: age, gender, and environment. This makes it easier to see the cause and effect relationship, which is those that saw more aggressive behavior were more likely to display more aggressive tendencies.
Lacks ecological validity
Social desirability (kids know they are being observed and will act different)
Screw that affect → participants might mess it up just for the sake of it (chances are higher with kids)
Participants expectancy bias → kids will try to act better to please the researcher or parents (maybe the parents might reprimand them for acting violently?)
research
individual and group
Cialdini et al
Link:
Was done in a naturalistic environment so the IV(card) isn’t completely isolated.A DV was still measured to identify a casual relationship.
Lack of full control of the extraneous variables
But has a high ecological validity
Low validity or reliability
Cannot be sure that the cards affected the towel use, correlational but may not be causation because it is field
research
reliability of cognitive processes
Loftus and Palmer
Link:
Isolated IV(leading question) so it is the only factor affect the DV(speed estimate). Would show a cause and effect relationship.
—
Lack of ecological validity → witnessing a car crash in real life is more likely and you aren’t going to be asked about the speed
Mundane reality (video) if the witness was in the actual situation, they might experience sensory overload or be overwhelmed and the fear may cause them to act differently
Leading question (1st) guides the person unconsciously to a certain answer
research
reliability of cognitive processes
Stone
Link:
Isolated the IV(race of person) so it is the only factor that affects the DV(player judgements). Shows a causal relationship.
-- evaluation: Generalizability Population validity didn’t measure schema just memory conducted on college students (population validity) meaning it may not be generalized to children as their schema may not be as developed.
ethics
brain and behavior
passamonti
Link
Since the participants have to drink either a tryptophan lacking drink or placebo, it is important that they are notified of the risks of tryptophan should they feel uncomfortable in ingesting it. However, it is important to note that
–
Evaluation:
it is important to note too much information is told to the participant because it might participant expectancy effect or screw you effect
ethics
brain and behavior
feinstein
Link:
SM has a rare condition in which revealing her name could lead to her being scrunchinzed or even the possibility that someone may want to test her condition and lead her to dangerous situations. People might want to take advantage of her situation for their personal gain.
–
Evaluation
To ensure anonymity, any information that could be used to identify the participant must remain confidential, such as name, place of birth, etc. In this case, a code name was used for SM. However, some information still needs to be provided, such as information related to the study. In SM’s case, her main condition was still shared as well as her gender.
ethics
hormones and behavior
radke
Link:
Participants will go inside an fMRI and they should know of the risks of the fMRI so they should be given the option to leave if they feel uncomfortable.
–
Evaluation:
it is important to note too much information is told to the participant because it might participant expectancy effect or screw you effect. Participants should be in a good mental state to consent to the experiment.
ethics
hormones and behavior
ehrenkranz
Link:
Participants’ identities should be classified as they could be threatened, harmed, or ostracized for the results of the study. If the study reveals someone to have a biological disposition towards acting violently, then it could affect their safety, job opportunities, relationship, etc. It would affect their lives outside of prison (if they are released) because they would be treated unjustly.
–
Evaluation:
However, if the participant is at serious risk of harming themselves or others, then the researchers may have to consider revealing essential information so they can get the proper professional help.
ethics
individual and the group
stone
Link:
Participants should have their identities classified as the results of the study shows if they have any implicit bias, hold racial stereotypes, prejudice etc. This could be labeled as discrimination of prejudice and people might harass or threaten participants because of their implicit bias
–
Evaluation:
Some information needs to be released, such as age, gender, etc.
ethics
individual and the group
bandura
Link
Consent is required because the kids might potentially be traumatized or emotional damaged by watching and adult aggressively beat up the doll. Both the kid and parent should give consent
–
Evaluation:
Because this study was conducted on young children the parent should provide consent, but this can be problematic as the child never gets to decide for themselves and it is plausible that there could be lasting effects caused by the modeling of aggressive behavior. To make an informed decision, parents should be provided with details of the nature of the study and any possible harm that could be caused. However, giving the parents this information could pose issues because they could mention details of the procedure to the children who might then try to act in a socially desirable fashion (e.g. act less aggressive because they know it’s wrong) which would reduce the validity of the study
ethics
reliability of cognitive processes
loftus and palmer
Link:
Because the participants will be watching a severe car crash, which could be psychologically harmful as the severity can cause some trauma. Or it can trigger some other past trauma and the patient leaves the study with more emotional and psychological harm.
–
Evaluation
If the participants know too much about the experiment, then they will try to change their behavior to fit what the researchers are expecting (participant expectancy effect). Knowing the aim, they would also knowingly change their behavior to sabotage the experiment. .
