Section B: Scientific Processes (Psychology as a Science) Flashcards
The Scientific Process: What is ‘deductive reasoning’?
-Works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a “top-down” approach.
- We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test.
-We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data – a confirmation (or not) of our original theories.
The Scientific Process: What is ‘inductive reasoning’?
-Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories.
-Informally, we sometimes call this a “bottom up” approach.
In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.
What is meant by ‘objectivity’?
-This is when a study is BIAS FREE of the experimenter, and there are operationalised definitions of behaviour being used. It also refers to the validity (or accuracy/consistency) of a measure.
Why might it be difficult for researchers to remain objective when conducting and analysing psychological research?
CONFIRMATION BIAS –> Researchers will be looking for findings that align to/ support their hypothesis and assumptions.
What could be used to improve the risk of confirmation bias?
To improve this, a DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE could be used –> Where another researcher to conduct a study on your behalf who is naïve to the research aim (potential limitation is that they could probably guess the aim).
Explain FIVE ways that an experimenter might affect the results of their study, therefore making it less objective?
- Leading questions that contain CUES that INFLUENCE the way that a participant responds.
- The sampling technique used to recruit participants may not be representative (e.g. opportunity sampling uses participants who are readily available which does NOT accurately reflect the proportions of the population).
- No random allocation to conditions is problematic as it is subjective –> the researcher may consciously/unconsciously pick participants based on their characteristics).
For example, if there is a treatment experiment with a drug and placebo, if researchers know which is the experimental group and which is the placebo, then they may offer more support throughout the procedure/ interpret the data more positively from the experimental group - “feeling alright” may be interpreted as the effects of the drug. - CONFIRMATION BIAS –> When the researcher selectively attends to actions/ aspects that support their hypothesis (can be deliberate or unconscious –> e.g. if a study predicts that boys are more aggressive than girls, then researchers may pick up more on aggressive behaviour shown in boys as they are actively looking for it.
- Difference in a researcher’s treatment of participants - might lead to cues being given to one set of ppts –> can be deliberate or unconscious.
How can the OBJECTIVITY of a measurement be improved? How can researchers ensure that they are bias free when conducting their research?
- Use QUANTITATIVE DATA to measure to reduce bias in interpretation.
-Double/ single blind procedures.
-Standardised instructions (e.g. pre-recorded instructions to ensure exact same delivery - same tone, identical instructions).
-Operationalised categories - Well defined and clear, no room for subjective interpretation.
-Inter-rater reliability checks.
-Random allocation of ppts to conditions.
-Representative sample selected –> e.g. stratified.
What is meant by the term ‘empiricism’?
This is when information is gained through DIRECT OBSERVATION rather than simply argument or belief –> i.e. we should be able to operationalise our IV and DV and directly observe them.
Why are OBJECTIVITY and EMPIRICISM important in science?
-Data is more likely to be reliable and valid (credible) –> free from interpretation.
-If something has credibility, it is BELIEVABLE - it gives us high levels of certainty and confidence in our findings.
Give an example of areas of psychology that can be studied EMPIRICALLY?
-Brain scans are empirical –> observable, physical brain structure –> therefore not open to dispute.
Give an example of areas of psychology that cannot be studied EMPIRICALLY?
-Mediational processes in SLT –>Attention, Retention, Reproduction, Motivation –> Studied using INFERENCES from behaviour.
What are EMPIRICAL aspects of the learning approach and what are NON-EMPIRICAL aspects of the learning approach?
Empirical :
-The saliva of Pavlov’s dogs was empirical –> measurable and quantifiable evidence. Observable amount of salivation.
-The number of times the rats pressed the level –> Quantitative, measurable.
-Bandura: Number of times children hit the Bobo Doll –> Observable and quantifiable.
Non-Empirical:
-Mediational processes in the SLT –> based on inferences from behaviour.
What are EMPIRICIAL aspects of the psychodynamic approach and what are NON-EMPIRICAL aspects of this approach?
Empirical:
-If an individual is fixated on oral stage –> nail biter and smoker - observable characteristics.
-Consequences of fixation –> Measurable (e.g. how many cigarettes are smoked a day).
Non-Empirical:
-The idea of the ID, EGO and SUPEREGO –> Non-observable - cannot be seen or tested, or proved. Not falsifiable.
-Freud interested in the unconscious mind –> Not observable or empirical.
-Defence mechanisms - Not empirical or observable.
(A01) What is REPLICABILITY?
The opportunity to REPEAT an investigation under the SAME CONDITIONS in order to check and verify specific information by finding consistent results.
In other words, replicability can be seen as:
-The ability to replicate/repeat the method to assess if similar findings are achieved.
-The ability to achieve similar findings.
Why is replicability an important feature of science? (think about DRAWING CONCLUSIONS)
If researchers wish to draw conclusions from research studies, the procedures and findings should be REPEATABLE.
-Unrepeatable results may IMPLY FLAWS or LACK OF CONTROL within the method used and ARE OF LIMITED USE IN THEORY CONSTRUCTION.
Explain MORE reasons why replicability is an important feature of science?
-Replicability INCREASES OUR CONFIDENCE IN RESULTS which in turn suggests data is MORE LIKELY TO BE VALID (accurate) if findings are consistent –> This enables ‘one offs’ to be discarded and reduces the impact of anomalous results.
-Replication STRENGTHENS THE CREDIBILITY OF A THEORY through repeated attempts at refutation and falsification.
-Improves the GENERALISABILITY of findings –> Increasing the sample means it is more representative of the wider ‘target’ population –> If findings are consistent throughout, they are more generalisable.
-Increases external reliability if consistent results are found.
Is the research study of Little Hans replicable?
NO –> Low replicability due to the use of a case study - Unique scenario means researchers are unable to replicate to check for consistency of findings.
Is Loftus’ research into leading questions (car-crash clips) replicable?
YES - Lab experiment so is highly replicable –> strict control over extraneous variables so we can establish cause and effect (conclude that the IV is having a direct effect on the DV).
We are able to replicate the exact same setting to check for reliability as the study follows a standardised procedure –> assesses consistency of findings through replication –> SAME video shown to ppts.
(A01) What is meant by ‘falsifiability’?
Popper argued that scientific theories must risk being PROVED WRONG.
-According to Popper, what separates a science from a non-science is not the ability to verify (and confirm) results but the ability to FALSIFY THE THEORIES (TO BE ABLE TO PROVE IT WRONG).
According to the American Psychological Association, What is falsification?
-Falsification is the logical possibility that an assertion, hypothesis or theory CAN BE SHOWN TO BE FALSE BY AN OBSERVATION OR EXPERIMENT.
-Therefore, in order for psychology to be considered scientific, we have to CONSTRUCT TESTABLE HYPOTHESES (deductive method) WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE FALSIFIED (proved wrong).
Why can INDUCTION (the inductive method), by contrast, NOT yield certainty?
-No matter how many observations are made which confirm a theory, there is always the possibility that a future observation could refute it.
Is the Humanistic Approach FALSIFIABLE? Why/Why not?
The Humanistic Approach is mainly unfalsifiable.
-Concepts such as ‘self-actualisation’ and ‘congruence’ are NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE. Therefor, it is NOT possible to falsify such concepts as they have to BE INFERRED.
-To involve the deductive method and hypothesis testing, researchers need to be able to OPERATIONALISE VARIABLES and TEST THE IMPACT OF ONE THING ON ANOTHER (i.e. isolate variables) and focus on one aspect of human behaviour. HOWEVER, THE HUMANISTIC APPROACH IS HOLISTIC –> SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS IMPORTANT MEANING WE CANNOT ISOLATE VARIABLES.
-The judgement as to whether someone has self-actualised or not is also open to bias and subjectivity –> It is not directly observable or measurable and therefore, becomes impossible to refute using scientific methods.
Is the Biological Approach FALSIFIABLE? Why/Why not?
-Damage to the pre-frontal cortex resulting in behavioural changes IS OBSERVABLE –> DAMAGE CAN BE SEEN ON A SCAN.
-Increase in testosterone levels in rats –> Can be directly manipulated and behavioural changes observed.
What is a HYPOTHESIS?
A hypothesis is a TESTABLE, PRECISE statement of what the researchers PREDICT in terms of the outcome of a study.
