Statistically evaluating psychology lecture 2a & 2b test

Question 1

What do quantitative methods measure?

Answer 1

They measure aspects of human psychology

Question 2

What is quantification

Answer 2

Taking human behaviour and coding it numerically

Question 3

What are numeric codes

Answer 3

They are variables

E.g. we would give aggression a numeric code

Question 4

Example of no variance

Answer 4

If human behaviour was constant both within and across individuals then there would be no variance

Question 5

Variance (differences)

Answer 5

It is the difference that we measure and try to explain in psychology
Assess variance within our sample

Question 6

Variables

Answer 6

The things that change
Variables can be:
Categorical (belonging on a scale)
Continuous (along a scale)
There are many ways variables can be defined, this can affect the conclusion of the study
Need to operationalise variables (define how we will quantify these constructs)

Question 7

Psychological variables

Answer 7

Psychological variables are often hypothetical constructs - treating these as real is called reification
They assign an intangible?abstract label to human behaviours
E.g. Is measuring memory the same as measuring height

Question 8

What should operationalised variables be?

Answer 8

1. Reliable: test-retest reliability

2. Valid

Question 9

Cause and effect

Answer 9

The change in one variable causes the change in another variable
In an experiment we are seeking evidence for a casual relationship between variables
E.g. Is Donald trump really causing my aggression

Question 10

Larrick et al. 2011

Answer 10

Assessed 57,293 baseball games
Pitcher more likely to hit the batsman in hotter temperatures
Increases in hostility and reduced inhibition of retaliation
Aforementioned design

Question 11

Aforementioned designs

Answer 11

NOT experiments due to:
Do not control whether hot or not
Do not control who is in the hot group
Leads to alternative explanations for the findings

Question 12

Confounding variables

Answer 12

Uncontrolled variables that may provide an alternative explanation

Question 13

Rule et al. 1987

Answer 13

Randomly assigned people to a normal or hot room
Participants instructed to complete an ambiguous story that could be interpreted aggressively or not aggressively
Those in hot room used more frustrations, negative emotions and aggression in story completion task
True experiment - Rule had control over whether it was hot or not
Rule randomly allocated people to hot or temperate room conditions

Question 14

True experiment

Answer 14

We have control over IV
Randomly allocate people to different conditions of the IV
Everything else is held constant
Measure the effects of this IV manipulation on the DV
Attempt to isolate cause and effect

Question 15

IV

Answer 15

Variable being manipulated
Conceptualised in terms of levels - number of conditions/groups for the IV
How we administer the IV determines the type of design

Question 16

DV

Answer 16

Variable being measured as an outcome

Question 17

Between-participant design

Answer 17

If there are different people in each level of IV it is an independent sample (between-participants design)
Advantages:
P's don't take part in both conditions - less likely to guess manipulation
Related - no practice/fatigue
Dont need to produce more stimuli
Disadvantages:
Potentially non-equivalent samples
Need more p's

Question 18

Within-participants design

Answer 18

If the same people are completing each level of the IV it is an repeated measures (within-participants design)
Advantages:
Remove group differences as same people in all conditions
Need less p’s
Disadvantages:
Order effects
Non-equivalent sample

Question 19

Counterbalancing (within-participant design)

Answer 19

Can limit effects of p’s doing condition A followed by condition B by counterbalancing
Involves:
Half of p’s undertaking condition A followed by condition B
Half of p’s undertaking condition B followed by condition A
Known as ‘ABBA’
Order effects spread equally across 2 conditions
Asymmetric transfer - counterbalancing can sometimes result in asymmetric effects

Question 20

Matched pairs

Answer 20

Different people in each group
‘Match up’ similar people to create a de facto repeated measures/within participant design
Advantages:
No order effects
Non-equivalent groups issues are reduced/removed
No issues of non-equivalent stimuli
Disadvantages:
Cant ever truly ‘match’ p’s - issues with non-equivalent samples
Matching is time-consuming and potentially difficult