Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

research methods > week 4 research approaches > Flashcards

week 4 research approaches Flashcards

1
Q

falsifiability

A

the ability to disprove hypotheses as criterion for scientific research

refuting a general principle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

causality

A

distinguishing cause and effect relationships from mere correlation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

validity

A

ensuring internal (study-specific) and external (generalisable) conclusions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what did alhazen do

A

advocated observation and systematic inquiry

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what did Francis bacon introduce

A

inductive method and systematic experiments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what did Karl popper emphasize

A

falsifiability and critical rationalism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what do you associate popper and bacon with

A

observation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what is another way to say raven paradox

A

the paradox of indoor ornithology

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

explain the raven paradox

A

work on the logic of confirmation and is based on the principle of inductive reasoning. It can be summarized as follows:

  1. A universal statement, such as “All ravens are black,” is logically equivalent to its contrapositive: “If something is not black, then it is not a raven.”
  2. Observing a black raven confirms the statement “All ravens are black.”
  3. By the same logic, observing a green apple (a non-black, non-raven) should also confirm the statement, because it supports the contrapositive.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what is inductive reasoning

A

drawing general conclusions or forming hypotheses based on specific observations or evidence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what did Karl popper refute

A

inductive reasoning - can’t make a general statement from a few examples

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

4 steps of hypothetico-deductive model

A
  1. research question
  2. hypothesis
  3. predictions through deductive inference
  4. test - falsify
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what is deductive inference

A

logical reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from one or more general premises that are assumed to be true.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what is the emphasis of hypothetico-deductive model

A

avoid logical error like affirming the consequence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

operationalisation

A

translate general hypothesis into specific prediction of measurements - defining variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

generalisation

A

translate specific results of a test into a general statement that contributes to a theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

confounder

A

condition/factor whose variation systematically affects the DV, but is not part of the IV

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

noise

A

unsystematic random variation of measurements producing uncertainty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

how to control confounds

A

keep all conditions constant even those not part of the experiment

20
Q

how to control noise

A

can’t fully eliminate noise but you can minimize it

measurements should be as precise as possible - little variation

21
Q

weakness of observational research

A

no test of causality as no manipulation or control

clutter of data

ptsp can act differently when they know they’re being watched

ethical problems - consent

22
Q

what does cooccurrence not allow for

A

establishing cause and effect

23
Q

what do confounds produce

A

spurious correlations/relationships between IV and DV

24
Q

spurious correlation

A

A spurious correlation is a misleading statistical association between two variables that occurs because of the influence of one or more confounding variables, not because of any actual causal relationship between the two variables.

25
Q

quasi experiment

A

IV is partially but not completely independent - conditions of IV are measured but not controlled or manipulated

26
Q

weakness of quasi experiment

A

systematic differences between groups can be con founds that may account for observed effect

sampling error - not representative

uncontrolled variation of conditions can produce systematic or random variation of DV

27
Q

4 major criteria of empirical evidence

A
  1. reliability
  2. accuracy
  3. internal validity
  4. external validity
28
Q

reliability

A

reproducibility of results

29
Q

test reliability

A

how reliable the measurements are

30
Q

statistical reliability

A

how high is random noise in the data

31
Q

experimental reliability

A

how stable results are across experiments

32
Q

repeatability

A

results can be reproduced by same researched in same lab

33
Q

reproducibility

A

other researchers in another lab reproduce results

34
Q

replicability

A

other researcher in another lab reproduce same results by replicating conditions

35
Q

accuracy

A

how correct the data is

36
Q

internal validity

A

validity of results - does it test hypothesis

37
Q

2 types of internal validity

A
  1. confounds - validity of experimental control
  2. construct and content validity - whether a measure actually measures the idea eg are IQ tests a measure of intelligence
38
Q

external validity

A

the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized so that conclusions apply beyond the context of the study

39
Q

2 types of external validity

A
  1. ecological validity - whether results apply to different settings
  2. population validity - whether the result of sample applies to whole population
40
Q

pro and con of lab exp

A

pro = full control and max internal validity

con = low external validity - not real life conditions

41
Q

field exp

A

real environment including all factors

42
Q

pro and con of field studies

A

pro = high external validity

con = low internal validity and ethical issues

43
Q

how to organize research report

A
  1. intro - assumptions, research question, hypothesis, prediction
  2. method = exp control of confounds
  3. results - data and analysis
  4. discussion - internal and external validity
  5. conclusion
44
Q

the impossibility of verification is a logical result of

A

the generality of proposition

45
Q
A

research methods (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions