209 exam 1

Scientific Method

The steps for conducting psychological research

uses empirical observations to study psychological phenomenon

why are there misunderstandings in the first place

depends on where we get our knowledge from, how expectations are formed, and how we collect data

Epistemology

How do we know the things that we know

Empiricism/empiral data

knowledge that comes from systematic experiences

data we can gather objectively though 5 senses (see, feel, hear, taste)

What does empirical data have to be

replicable (consistent phenomenon that is happening, can determine its objectivity if we can replicate it)

what does it mean for our personal experiences to be probabilistic

one set of findings does not explain all cases

this is why personal experience isn’t enough

Theory

Set of statements that describes general (abstract) principles about how constructs relate to one another

how 2 psychological phenomenon are related to each other

what are constrcuts

any abstract concept that can be measured or manipulated, and varies across people

ex. depression, self-esteem, intelligence, love, etc.

How can we develop strong theories?

Replicable: data that supports the theory repeats across difference methods and contexts

Universality: ability to do research is open to everyone

Communal: sharing is caring…data should not be gatekept

Disinterested: unbiased (as much as possible)

Organized skepticism: question everything

Falsifiable: no theory is guaranteed to be true forever, evidence can support or refute a theory, adjust theory as you gather more evidence

Why don’t we say we prove something

It has been proven that exercise increases mood VS there is evidence that shoes exercise increases mood

relates back to falsifiability, want to keep science going, keep checking something when we get updated datato stay open to new evidence and avoid dogmatism.

What is after theory

hypothesis: prediction or claim about the state of the world derived from a theory (more specific prediction coming from a theory)

if data supports hypothesis, means it supports theory too

if data refutes hypothesis, adjust the theory, reject is refuted enough times

What is after hypothesis

collect and analyze data

Data collection: process of gathering empirical observations from participants

ex. self report, behavioral measures, physiological equipment

Data analysis: how do we know whether the data we collected supported or refuted the hypothesis

What is after data collection/analyzing

Report findings through academic journal article, conferences,

What is after report findings

evaluate and refine theory

either further supporting theory or revising theory to account for non supporting data

1st part of how do we know what we know (in terms of psychology)

why use it

experience: what have we personally experienced, anecdotal evidence

use it because what we see is what we believe

we know ourselves, convenient to reference

why is experience not the most accurate

memory is not like a camera (can change over time)

confirmation bias

Probabilistic (no comparison group, just bc it happened specifically to you, not an empirical basis bc it might not apply to other people)

confounds (multiple explanations/third variables that are going on in the background, may not realize it)

2nd part of how do we know what we know (in terms of psychology)

why do we use it

intuition: trying to reason or be logical but without formal training

use it because FEELS like it makes sense and works quickly

why is intuition not always accurate

we can be easily persuaded (emotions, what comes to mind more easily)

like experience, limited by what we know

3rd part of how do we know what we know (in terms of psychology)

why do we use it

authority: knowledge comes from others who are highly prestigious, important, or powerful (comes in many forms that can be persuasive: position, status, aspects of identity, how one expresses themselves)

use it because it is correlated with expertise and assumes authority is earned and can be trusted

why is authority not always accurate

signals/how they looks are not always accurate

many reasons for why someone has authority

have goals/agenda, other than being accurate

still susceptible to biases

how to improve experience and intuition

diversify your actual experiences

do an informal study to figure out specific explanations

if not possible, at least consider the alternatives

even if correct, back it up with empirical evidence

how to improve authority

looks into the authority figure and what they do, how they became an authority

draw from multiple sources, where do people agree/disagree

Producer

who does the research

consumer

who receives and applies the research

need to know how to interpret the research

cognitive biases

why do we have biases in the first place

errors in thinking and processing information

when we try to think more quickly (shortcuts on the brain)

tired, don’t have the effort to think thoroughly and consciously

availability heurisitc

rely on info that comes to mind most recently, readily, easily, or vividly

most memorable example is not necessarily the most common or accurate

confirmation bias

only asking or considering evidence that supports hypothesis or beliefs we already have

affects conscious (more likely to try to explain away non supporting evidence) and unconscious (what info are you more likely to pay attention to) behavior

cherry picking

availability vs confirmation bias

availability: cats being more emotional comes to mid more easily, believes it happens more often than it actually does

confirmation: supports my beliefs about cats, focus on searching for evidence that best supports your side

cognitive bias solutions

consider all combinations of possibilities:

for availability heuristic: research actual base rates and frequency of phenomena, look to other sources

confirmation bias: attempt to falsify hypothesis, what would you ask to refute it

bias blind spot

failure to recognize that you are as likely to exhibit cognitive bias as everyone else

constructs

abstract, more broad, conceptual and theoretical

variable

something concrete that varies or can change between participants in a study

operational definition

operationalization

specific variable that is the concrete, specific version of a theoretical construct

process of taking general construct into making it more specific in a study

operational definition=variables

makes it easier to replicate a study

construct to operational definition

passionate love

behavioral (gazing, touch, thinking about person, sex), physiological (skin conductance, heart rate, blood pressure), neurological (dopamine)

how many levels do variables have to have at the bare minimum

2 levels

2 other forms that variables can be characterized in the study

measured: simply asses or record the variable as is

ex. measure love with self report

manipulated: experimenter changes the levels

ex. study has a low love and high love condition

what else can be a variable

demographics (age, gender, religion)

any data you are interested in collecting that varies

constant

an aspect of the study that does not change (held constant)

like a variable that doesn’t vary (only 1 level)

claims

argument

frequency claims

how often something happens, how many people do something (%)

describing presence/occurrence of a particular variable by itself

1 variable is involved

ex. how many hours of sleep do people get?

association claims

to what extent are variables related to each other

how much they are correlated

correlation (covariation)

how does one variable change when the levels of another variable change?

ex. who are the kinds of people who sleep more \ex. better sleep associated with summer

types of association claims

positive correlation (association): one variable goes up, other one also goes up

negative correlation: one variable goes up, other goes down

zero correlation: no relation between variables

causal claims

variables aren’t just linked to each other, one variable is actually causing change to another

to what extent does changes in one variable causes changes in another variable

3 requirements for causal claims

covariance: correlation/association (+ or -)

temporal precedence: the variable causing the changes comes first

ensure that only the manipulated variable is causing changes in the measured variable (no other explanation)

why distinguishing claims matters

important to fit the claim to the evidence you have

correlational vs. causal

in causal, experiemnter has to be manipulating something

in correlational, just measuring

differentiating between claims using words

frequency: percentages, number, count, rate

association: associate, correlate, relate, link, more/less likely to, goes with

causal: affect, cause, influence, increase/decrease, could/suggest (tentative but still causal)

why should we care about ethics

participants might be willing to do something just bc figure of authority is telling you to

what happens if participants do something harmful

participants who cant advocate for themselves

who are participants who cant advocate for themselves

children

people who are mentally or physically compromised (at time of study)

people in prison

animals

3 main principles for research across disciplines

respect for persons: participants should be treated as their own person who have the right to make their own, informed decisions

benificiancary

justice

respect for persons

participants should be treated as their own person who have the right to make their own, informed decisions

ex. Facebook emotional contagion study (can emotions spread online?)

ppl saw less negative/positive emotional content

results:

less positive feed: made more negative posts

less negative feed: made more positive posts

technically legal according to terms and agreement

ethical violation: occurred without informed consent

informed consent

participant consents to the study, knowing what will happen in the study and the risks and benefits involved

consent form example

lay language so participants can understand

are there any cases where informed consent isn’t needed?

exceptions to informed consent

educational research in schools (only if there is no manipulation where one group gets worse treatment)

job organizational effectiveness research with no risk to employment

only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research with minimal risk (in public where you already would be observed)

what do we want to avoid

coercion: pressure to participate in order to prevent something negative from happening

undue influence: incentive is too good to turn down

beneficence

protect and minimize harm to participant

ex. withdrawing treatment, revealing personal info

can practice beneficence by

anonymity: no potentially identifiable info is collected at all

confidentiality: identifiable info is collected, but not shared with others and securely stores and protected

exception: if indications to harm themselves, victim of abuse, gave consent to reveal info

little albert

experimenters conditioned little albert to be scared of white rat because of loud noise

generalized to white, fluffy animals/objects

ethical violations: gave albert a fear that he didn’t have before, didn’t attempt to undo it

justice

benefit not just the researches, but also everyone else

cost and benefit of research shared by all, what is the cost of this research to the participant and what is the benefit?

if study a particular group, research must benefit that group to

Tuskegee syphilis study: told 600 black men they had bad blood, not syphilis (researches did not give treatment, even though they could, exploits participants, violates justice principle)

milgrim study

shocked the learner every time they got it wrong

beneficence: people administering the shocks thought they killed someone, very psychologically distressing

respect for persons: participants were coerced

justice: wasn’t much of a benefit to the other group