Week 1 Flashcards
How has scientific research has changed the world?
1.“Father of immunology” because he was among the first to conceive of and test
vaccinations. His work directly led to the eradication of smallpox. Many other diseases have been reduced due to Jenner as well.
2. Fritz Haber and Norman Borlaug saved more than a billion human lives with the creation of the “Green Revolution” by
producing hybrid agricultural crops and synthetic fertilizer. Now humanity can
produce food for the seven billion people on the planet; the starvation that occurs is
due to political and economic factors rather than our collective ability to produce food.
3. The percentage of hungry and malnourished people in the world has dropped substantially across the globe.
4. Average levels of IQ have risen dramatically over the past century due to better nutrition and schooling.
5. Major Social and Technological Changes; electricity, cars, radios, televisions, birth control pills, artificial hearts and antibiotics.
6. Life expectancy from 47 years in 1900 to 79 years in 2010
What are the key characteristics of the scientific approach?
Systematic observation is the core of science. Scientists observe in an organized way and record their observations so memory biases do not enter conclusions.
They are systematic in that they try to observe under controlled conditions, and also systematically vary the conditions of their observations in order to see variations and when they do/don’t occur.
Observations lead to hypotheses we can test.
Science is democratic, as people want to be able to form their own opinions and debate conclusions. Scientists are skeptical and have open discussions about their observations and findings; these debates often occur as scientists publish competing findings with the idea that the best data will win the argument.
Science is cumulative; a crucial aspect of scientific progress is that after we learn of earlier advances by earlier scientists, we can build upon them and move farther along the path of knowledge.
What are some benefits and problems that have been created by science?
Benefits
- Therapies for the treatment of psychological disorders
- Innovations such as electricity, medicine & crops, etc.
- Scientific approach offers clarity and precision when formulating a hypothesis
- Scientific approach subjects ideas to empirical tests
- Science demands subjective data and thorough documentation before ideas are accepted
- DNA evidence
Problems
- Many psychological phenomena such as depression, intelligence and prejudice do not appear directly observable.
- Lack of honesty in self reporting
- Ethical Issues
- Bias (Sampling bias / Experimenter bias)
- Placebo Effects
In what ways has psychological science improved the world?
- Psychological science has improved the world by creating interventions that help people live better lives, such as determining with therapies are the most and least effective for the treatment of psychological disorders (CBT for people suffering from depression / anxiety).
- Organizational psychology has found a number of interventions to produce greater productivity and satisfaction in the workplace through the safety and utility of the products used as an example, human factors psychologist Alphonse Chapanis and other researchers redesigned the cockpit controls of aircrafts to make them less confusing and easier to respond to, this lead to a decrease in pilot errors and crashes.
- Research done by Elizabeth Loftus has shown the limits and unreliability of eyewitness testimony and memory which has improved the wrongful imprisonment of individuals whose cases hinged on this type of psychological evidence.
- Educational & school psychology aims at improving curriculums design, achievement testing and teacher training and many other aspects of the educational process.
- Developmental psychology, child development stages through to adolescence, adulthood and old age.
- Social psychology understanding interpersonal behavior and the social forces governing behavior.
- Health psychology focusing on how psychological factors relate to the promotion and maintenance of physical health, and the causation, prevention and treatment of illnesses.
- To understand ourselves, our motivations and our choices.
What ethical guidelines do psychologists follow?
Scientific psychologists follow a code of ethics – a few highlights are as follows:
• Informed consent: people should know when they’re involved in research, and
understand what will happen to them during the study, then be given a free choice as to
whether to participate.
• Confidentiality: information learned about a participant should not be made public
without consent
• Privacy: researchers should not make observations of people in private places such as
bedrooms without their knowledge and consent. They should also not seek confidential
info from others without consent.
• Benefits: researchers should consider the benefits of their proposed research and weigh
these against potential risks to the participants. Participants should be exposed to risk
only if they fully understand these risks and only if the likely benefits clearly outway the
risks.
• Deception: some researchers need to deceive participants to hide the true nature of the
study to prevent modifications in behavior in unnatural ways. Researchers must debrief
their participants after the study which is an opportunity to educate participants about the
true nature of the study.
Sometimes considered the core of science, _________ refers to the careful monitoring (or watching) of the natural world with the aim of better understanding it.
Systematic Observation
______ methods in psychological research are approaches to data-gathering that are tied to actual measurement and observation.
Empirical
Dr. Miller-Lewis is conducting research aimed at understanding how elderly people can best thrive when residing in an assisted-living facility. She has several logical ideas that can be tested in her research. These ideas, which might be thought of as educated guesses, are called _____.
Hypothesis
_______ are professional guidelines that offer researchers a path for making decisions that protect their participants from potential harm.
Ethics
Oladipo volunteers to be a participant in a research study. When he arrives at the laboratory, he is given a handout that describes the basic purposes of the research and explains that they are not obligated to participate in the study. This handout is related to the ethical consideration of _________.
Informed Consent
What features distinguish scientific thinking from everyday inductive reasoning
Scientific claims tend to use less certain language and are more likely to be associated with
probabilities.
I will list below some features that distinguish scientific thinking, theories and date from
everyday thinking:
• Accuracy. Explanations and theories match real world observations.
• Consistency. A theory has few exceptions and shows agreement with other theories within
and across disciplines.
• Scope. Extent to which a theory extends beyond currently available data, explaining a wide
array of phenomena. All pieces of evidence are accounted for and weighed.
• Simplicity. When multiple explanations are equally good at explaining the date, the simplest
should be selected.
• Fruitfulness. The usefulness of the theory in guiding new research by predicting new,
testable relationships.
Why are scientific conclusions and theories trustworthy, even if they aren’t able to be proven?
Unless it can be proven, science more-so sheds light on the probability of something as inductive reasoning is based on probabilities. Probabilities are always a matter of degree; they may be extremely likely or unlikely.
Scientists/researchers use null hypothesis significance testing (described in key terms). The
researcher compares what she expects to find (probability) with what she actually finds (collected data) to determine whether they can falsify or reject the null hypothesis in favor
of the alternative hypothesis. This is done by looking at the distribution of data. The distribution is the spread of values. The researcher can use a probability table to assess the
likelihood of any distribution found.
Overall scientific conclusions and theories are trustworthy even if they cannot be absolutely proven because the research utilizes the scientific method to describe, explain, and predict in a way that can be empirically tested and potentially falsified.
Statistically significant findings are likely to yield accurate conclusions, but they are never a sure thing. Although statistical significance indicates that the likelihood of random findings is very low, it is never zero.
Because it is systematic, using testable, reliable data, it can allow us to determine causality and can help us generalize our conclusions. By understanding how scientific conclusions are reached, we are better equipped to use science as a tool of knowledge.
What are the possible outcomes for null hypothesis testing?
• In the process of testing hypotheses, there are four possible outcomes, determined by two factors: reality and what the researcher finds. The best outcome is accurate detection,
meaning the researchers conclusions mirror reality. Another form of accurate detection is when a researcher finds no evidence for a phenomenon, but that phenomenon doesn’t actually exist anyway.
• Another possible outcome is a type I error – when the researcher concludes there is a relationship between two variables but, in reality, there is not. It may be due to coincidence that this occurs.
• Another outcome is a type II error – when the data fail to show a relationship between variables that actually exist.
• There is a concern that these types of errors mean there is no way to tell if data is good or not, and these concerns are addressed by using probability values (p-values) to set a
threshold for type I or type II errors. So, if they say a particular finding is “significant at a p < 0.5 level”, it means if the study were repeated 100 times, this result would occur by chance
fewer than five times
• The most common thresholds for probability used in psychological science are 0.5 (5% chance), 0.1, and 0.001.
• These methodologies are what make science generally trustworthy – scientific claims are more likely to be correct and predict real outcomes than “common sense” opinions and
personal anecdotes because researchers consider how to best prepare and measure their
subjects, systematically collect data from large and – ideally – representative samples, and
test their findings against probability.
What does it mean to think like a psychological student?
Thinking like a psychological scientist is not simply setting out to collect isolated facts about the relationships between variables. Psychological scientist construct theories to build towards better understanding of the phenomena they are observing. By integrating apparently unrelated facts and principles into a coherent whole, theories permit scientists to make the leap from description to understanding. Furthermore, the enhanced understanding afforded by theories guides scientists future research by generating new predictions and suggesting possible new lines of inquiry. Scientific theories must be testable, as a cornerstone of science is its commitment to putting ideas to an empirical test.
What are some good qualities of scientific explanations and theories
Low P-Values
A key component of good theories is that they describe, explain, and predict in a way that can be empirically tested and potentially falsified.
Utilization of levels of analysis
Levels of analysis
Levels of analysis suggests that one level is not more correct – or truer – than another; their appropriateness depends on the specifics of the questions asked. It ultimately suggests we cannot understand the world around us, including human psychology, by reducing the
phenomenon to only the biochemistry of genes and dynamics of neural networks. But, neither can we understand humanity without considering the functions of the human nervous system.
Discuss science as a social activity
Thomas Kuhn made the argument that as something conducted by humans, science is a social activity. He believes that science is naturally always informed by the scientists values
and beliefs. All science, especially social sciences such as psychology, involves values and interpretation. Consequently, science functions best when people with diverse values and
backgrounds work collectively to understand complex natural phenomena. Therefore, science can benefit from multiple perspectives, and one approach to achieving
this is through levels of analysis – the idea that a single phenomenon may be explained at different levels simultaneously