Research Methods pt 2 Flashcards
Chapter 5
Self-report Measure
Reporting a person’s answer to a question you measured
How much caffeine have you consumed? How many caffeinated beverages have you had in the last week?
Ask parents or teachers for child self-report
Risk of biases; exaggerated results; self-fulfilling prophecy
Observational Measure
Behavioral measure
Operationalizing a behavior by recording observable behaviors
Classroom engagement
Conceptual variable
How many times did you see a child raising their hand?
Or observing a child in a school (natural setting)
How often does someone sneeze?
BIAS: people may act different when being observed
Physiological measure
Operationalizing a variable by recording biological data
How much cortisol is released in a saliva?
Categorical Variable
Nominal variable
Levels are qualitatively distinct categories
Assign numbers to variables; have no meaning; just to categories
Quantitative Variables
Coated with meaningful numbers
Height weight scale of someone’s wellbeing
Ordinal Scale
Ranking something in order
Only but so much
ex: socio economic status (“low income”,”middle income”,”high income”), education level (“high school”,”BS”,”MS”,”
Interval scale
Equal distances between numbers; between levels
0 does not have a value, not true 0, TEMP, pH, SAT score, credit score
Ratio Scale
Equal intervals and true zero: miles per hour, unemployment rate, time to repurchase , numbers of errors
Test-retest reliability
Consistent scores everytime you measure something
IQ test beginning of a semester, at end
Score should be relatively consistent
Interrater reliability
Having consistent scores no matter who is taking the measurement
Everybody that observes how often the child is smiling should have the same amount
Internal reliability
Going to provide consistent pattern of responses
Ask how lonely how you feel, asking in different ways,
Should be the same level of loneliness
Chapter4
Why do we need ethics?
Researchers are not always objective
Just because something advances the field doesn’t mean it doesn’t also harm the participants
Checks and balances: Not just one person holding the power and deeming the study as good/bad
Nazi human experimentation (1942-1945): Medical experiments in concentration camps.
Twins: control and experimental
Vaccines
Human limits
Freezing
Mustard gas: Finding effective treatment
Chambers of high altitude simulation
Poisoning
Blood coagulation
Tuskegee Study (1932-1972): Effects of untreated syphilis
Only used Black men and weren’t told that they had syphilis.
Told that they had bad blood and weren’t medically treated for syphilis
Wanted to understand the damage it caused and if it actually needed to be treated
Study continued after penicillin (treatment for syphilis) was created
Justification was that they did nothing to worsen the disease, they just didn’t treat it.
Henrietta Lacks (1951): Cell harvesting without consent
Mother of 5 had vaginal bleeding and had cervical cancer
Used radiation treatment
Took her cells and tested them without her knowing
Her cells doubled every 20-24 hours, unlike the others which would die quickly
Refrigerator Study (1958): Can children escape from refrigerators?
201 children; age 2-5
Locked kids in the fridge to see which release devices worked best
Milgram Obedience Study (1961)
Post APA guidelines
Learner was a confederate. Gave mainly wrong answers and wasn’t actually shocked
Teacher (research participant): shock learner each time they answer wrong
Increase shock voltage after each wrong answer
Reminded them what they signed up for is someone said they wouldn’t shock them
Psychological harm
Zimbardo Prison Study (1973): How strong does a role influence a person’s behavior?
Prisoner or guard
Chose similar people as participants
Guards went power crazy; prisoners became very stressed
No checks and balances
Nuremberg code: Process of informed consent.
Participation in research is voluntary and participants must be given information about the risks involved in the research
Research must contribute to scientific knowledge and be conducted by qualified researchers
Researchers need to avoid unnecessary harm, take precautions against risk, ensure the benefits outweigh the risks of the study, and terminate the study if unforeseen harm comes to the participants
Participants have the right to discontinue their participation in the study for any reason
APA Ethics Code:
1953 APA developed their own code for psychology
Researchers must reduce harm due to deception
Ensure confidentiality of participant data
Leave the responsibility of overseeing research studies to the researchers
Belmont Report
Beneficence:
Treated in an ethical manner not only by protecting their decisions and protecting them from harm to make efforts to secure their well-being.
This is often understood to cover acts of kindness or charity that go beyond strict obligation
Two general rules have been formulated as complementary expressions of beneficent actions in this sense: (1) do not harm and (2) maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms
Belmont Report Justice:
Injustice occurs when some benefit to which a person is entitled is denied without food reason or when some burden is imposed unduly. Another way of receiving the principle of justice is that equals ought to be treated equally
Belmont Report
Respect for persons:
Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions: Autonomous agent. Even individuals with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection
The principle of respect for persons thus divides into two separate moral requirements: the requirement to acknowledge autonomy and the requirement to protect those with diminished autonomy
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Performs risk-benefit analysis to ensure all studies meet community standards of ethical behavior. Checks and balances.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Composition
University instructors and researchers
University staff with research protocol expertise
Community members (minister, business person, etc.)