Exam 1 IRP

research methods

how do you set up research studies to test predictions in psychological science

statistics

how do you organize summarize and interpret the data gathered from a research study

psychological science

tries to understand why people think, feel, and behave the way they do (from an empirical standpoint)

experimental research question

what is the effect of on

correlation research question

what is the relationship between and

Psychology research challenges

how do you define/measure your predictor concept, how do you define/measure your outcome, how do you know if the measures you’re using are good enough for what you’re interested in, how do you collect your data, how do you summarize and analyze the data you’ve collected, how do you use your data to make broader conclusions

benefits of psychology research

understanding gives us the tools to predict and improve outcomes

psychology as an empirical science

science is an approach to understanding nature and ourselves, requires observation of peoples thoughts and behaviors, we often need to turn concepts into something we can measure and analyze, people vary from each other and from moment to moment

the producer role

doing the science, making things, coursework for upper-level classes, graduate school, working in a research lab

the consumer role

using the science, every profession can benefit from understanding related data and research in your field, fields that require studying the mind

how can a consumer consume science

reading printed or online news stories based on research, talk shows and podcasts, usually apply those findings to our own life

what does research help shape

public policy, evidence based practices, we use research to inform

psychologists as theorists

develop theories to explain how humans think feel and behave develop systems to explain

psychologists as empiricists

we rely on systematic observations (empiricism) to test the theories senses to gather data

what makes psychology a science

theory and data

how do psychologists test theories

with data

psychological science relies on what to test theories

observing and measuring phenomena

can psychological science only depend on theories and use logic reasoning to develop new theories

no because theories rely on assumptions and they need observations/data to support theories and refute and change

theory data cycle

theory-research questions- research design-hypotheses-data around to support or revision

theory

statement or set of statements that describe general principles about how variables relate to one another

hypothesis or prediction

a way of stating the specific outcome that the researcher expects to observe if the theory I s accurate, quantify, describe, define

data

a set of observations representing the values of some variable, collected from one of more research studies, gathered observations, categorical or numerical, data needs to be summarized

supporting data leads to

strengthening a theory

nonsupporting data leads to

revised theories or improved research design

how do you summarize numerical data

mean, median, mode

are theories guesses

no they build upon measured observations and accumulated knowledge from testing predictions, always come from what people see

theories can’t be…

proven- but overtime data can support a theory of suggest a theory should be changed or replaced

what are the two closest connected elements of the theory data cycle

theory and data

what makes a polygraph test a good theory

supported by data (ish not consistent and can’t replicate)

what makes a polygraph test a bad theory

it is not falsifiable or parsimonious

3 characteristics of a good theory

supported by data, falsifiable, parsimonious

supported by data

without data there’s no evidence that the explanation accounts for something real, a single piece of evidence is poor, data from multiple studies and labs is crucial replication is crucial

replication

multiple ways of testing, varied data from many sources

falsifiable

a theory must be testable such that some imaginable pattern of data can prove it wrong

does a theory that explains every outcome make a good theory

no because its not falsifiable ex. Freuds unconscious motivation theory

parsimonious

when two theories both explain data equally well the simpler theory is preferred, occams razor, use the theory with the smallest number of assumptions

the lights went off why

parsimonious - because you hit the light switch

how do you test predictions

through falsification, you have to be able to prove them wrong

all swans are white

because you saw a white swan does not mean all swans are white

denying the consequent

valid way to falsify, cannot go backwards

denying the consequent definition

if the 1st thing happens then the second thing happens - if the second thing doesn’t happen the first thing didn’t happen : if theory correct the predicted data - did not get predicted data - therefore theory is not correct

denying the consequent example

if it rains then its wet - if its not wet - it didn’t rain

affirming the consequent

invalid way to affirm, other confounding variables, need to test all data, this is why data can’t prove a theory it only supports it

affirming the consequent definition

if 1st thing happens then second thing happens - second thing happens - therefore the 1st thing must’ve happened : if theory correct then predicted data - get the predicted data - therefore theory is correct

affirming the consequent example

if it rains then its wet - it is wet - therefore it rained

3 ways of knowing

authority, intuition, experience

experience

basing decisions on past experiences as a sole source of knowing, often personal anecdotal approach

problems with knowing off experience

unlikely events, no comparison group, confounds

why data has problems with knowing through experience

data needs to be considered comparatively and data is relative ex does drinking water make you an olympian

experience and comparison groups

there is no true comparison group, we can never compare our experience to another in the same time and circumstance

confound

an extra variable that changes along with the variable you’re interested in that could have influenced the outcome

intuition

a sense of knowing without direct evidence such that the information feels like it is known instinctively, gut feeling, confirmation bias, cherry picking, confirmation hypothesis testing, bias blind spot

problems with intuition

shortcuts from intuition can lead us astray, and biases, availability heuristic, present present bias

availability heuristic

we latch onto what we see most often

present present bias

when examining relations between two events, we tend to not see absences but easily notice what is present, we focus on what happens not on what doesn’t happen

types of confirmation bias

cherry picking and confirmatory hypothesis testing

cherry picking

selecting information that supports a particular position, sometimes a controversial one, find information to support what you believe

confirmation bias

you don’t intake information you don’t agree with, more likely to remember and use information you agree with, events that support it stand out

bias blind spot

think you don’t have bias, other people have bias but I don’t

authority

someone in a position of authority tells you something is true, thus it must be true

problems with authority

authorities can be biased, what is expert enough for truth, authority in one domain doesn’t transfer to another and this can trick us

knowing based on research two cat.

scientific sources (for psychologists), other sources (for a general audience)

empirical journal articles

report for the first time the results of a research study, never been done before

Traits of a empirical journal article

peer reviews, contains details about the study’s method, stats used and the results

peer reviewed

process by which other experts in the field of research provide feedback on a scientific paper for quality before it is approved for publication, checks and balance system of review

popular press sources

summarize and widely share important/exciting results in psychology for broader audiences

traits of popular press sources

good for piquing interest and broad information, might not be summarized correctly

journal articles

the gold standard for psychological research, peer review process

empirical article vs review articles

empirical = first time review = summarize and evaluate information

review articles

a peer reviewed article summarizing and evaluating all the studies that have been published in one research area, summarize existing literature, good for research with mixed findings

edited book

each chapter is written by a different expert author and compiled by editors, coalition of chapters

full-length book

written by the same expert authors for the whole book

trade books or pop science books

written by scientists or people, findings may not be accurately conveyed

popular press

press releases, news reports, podcasts, magazines

press release

university/ research team gives an official statement about their research to reporters, can be more accurate

news reports

unofficial summaries of research by a reporter, doesn’t necessarily have researcher input, can range in quality

podcasts

usually unofficial summary of research; might interview researcher, range of levels

why do we operationalize a concept

when it is internal and not directly observable

what do psychology theories often come from

unobservables, mental states, we need ways to translate unobservable and abstract into observeable and concrete data

behavior and measures of data

ay need translation form abstract concepts such as reassurance seeking ex # of times they ask if they are okay, still a behavior but specific about what you’re looking for

operational definition

turns an abstract concept into a measurable variable

how do you operationalize self control

number of seconds waited before activity perseverance in an undesired task

claim

a statement or argument about some psychological process/construct, final statement

difficulty of claims in psychological science

they depend on indirect measurements of the things we’re interested in

types of claims that can be made depend on the

type of study conducted (research design), data collected, theory being investigated

research often produces

multiple types of claims, especially with more broad theories

what makes a stronger claim

the more diverse the support, the more it is replicated and supported

types of claims

frequency, association, causal

frequency claims

how often does something happen, one variable usually a percentage

association claims

what types of things happen together 2 variables 2 connecting frequency claims, doesn’t state a direction

causal claims

what causes something to happen, directional, one manipulated variable one dependent variable

frequency claims are

a statement of how common a behavior, occurrence etc is, data translated to a descriptive statistic, pie charts depict frequency claims

frequency claims are about

a single variable, not attempt to say what causes it, just a statement of how often something happens, often used to draw attention to prevalence

description of data collected

frequency claim, often inferred from a sample population frequency

a frequency claim is only as useful as

the operational defenition used to collect data

association claim definition

suggests there is a link between two variables

a pair of frequency claims

an association claim the frequency of one is tied to the frequency of another

what does an association claim not do

argue the causality, no direction in the relationship

association claims use words like

is linked to, is associated with goes with might predict

scatterplots

can represent assosciation claims, pattern of a correlation can be described by its form direction and strength