PSYC 379 EXAM 1

Empirical

Based on pure observation and logic

ethnocentrism

Generalizing experiences based on your own culture

• Who wrote this paper, and who is it meant to apply for?

• WEIRD students (White, Educated, institutionalized, rich, democratic)

Multimethod approach

No single method can answer all your questions, which is why it’s important to be interdisciplinary

• Every method has strengths/weaknesses

illusory correlation

Tendency to perceive a relationship between events when none exists

• Correlation does not mean causation!

Independent variable

Manipulated variable that we use to predict behavior

dependent variable

Measured variable that is used to assess the outcome of the manipulated.

description

What can objectively be seen and observed by multiple people

inference

How an observation (description) can be interpreted.

operationalization

Defining a construct solely in terms of observable procedures used to produce/measure it

• DSM-V criteria for depression

accuracy

Difference between what an instrument says and what is known to be true

precission

How detailed or fine grained can measurements get?

validity

“Truthfulness” of a measure. Does in measure what we’re trying to?

construct validity

Does it measure the construct of interest?

face validity

On the surface, does the measure appear to assess what it’s supposed to?

content validity

Do experts agree the measure is valid?

predictive validity

Does it correlate with other measures of the construct?

prediction

When researchers identify correlations among variables to predict behavior (does x lead to y?)

explanation

Understanding a phenomena by identifying causes

• causal inference

• covariation

• time order

• eliminate other causes

internal validity

Confidence in the “truth” of the causal relationship. How confident are we that independent variable causes dependent variable?

external/ecological validity

How can we generalize to other situations/populations?

• Lab vs. real world

• Is our sample size too WEIRD?

Applied research

How can this work to improve people’s lives in the real world?

• Efficacy trials: How well does it work in controlled settings?

• Effectiveness trials: How well it works in real world

Basic research

Laboratory based with the goal of understanding a specific phenoma

ontology

What is real in this world?

axiology

Role of values in research

paradigm

A set of assumptions we operate under as a “framework”

post-positvism

Incorporates elements of qualitative research (interviews being semi-structured) but not meant to be substitute.

• Goal is to map one true reality, and theory falsification

• Objective

• Values kept in check

critical ideological

• Primary Goal: Challenge and disrupt the status quo

• Ontology: Apprehendable socially constructed realities shaped by political, social, economic factors, and power relationships.

• Epistemology: Interactive & proactive research role seeking transformation and emancipation

• Axiology: Research values are central to the inquiry as participant empowerment is research goal

• Method: naturalistic, highly interactive; create transformation through discourse.

APA 5 Ethical Principles

• Beneficence: Doing good, not harm

• Fidelity and Responsibility: Upholding research standards/professionality.

• Integrity: Honesty, accuracy, truthfulness

• Justice: Everyone has access to benefits

• Respect for Persons’ Rights and Dignity: Protecting peoples welfare, removing bias

Minimal risk

When hurt/discomfort experienced in research is not greater than daily hassles

• Rational behind weighing risks and benefits

assent

Minor actually agreeing to be part of the research

• Not legally binding

• Done because minors can’t consent

testing ethics

• Harm

• Reversibility

• Common Practice

• Legality

• Colleague

• Wise relative

• Mirror

• Publicity

zeitgeist

The spirit of the times. Shapes how and what questions are asked and what resources are dedicated, and how society feels about these findings

• Psychology shapes zeitgeist, zeitgeist shapes psychology

hypothesis

Tentative explanation for a phenomenon

debriefing

Participants should feel good about the research experience and leave the study in the same state as they arrived

• Inform participants of the reason for any deception

• Discuss any misconceptions

• Remove any harmful effects

Confirmation bias

Selectively choosing information that proves what you already believe

deception

When info. is purposely witheld from participants, or participants are intentionally misinformed about aspects of study. Only done if there’s no other method

Pros:

• Get to see natural behavior

• Opportunity to investigate behavior that wouldn’t be seen otherwise

Cons

• Contradicts informed consent

• Creates dishonest relationship

• Gives research a bad reputation

construct

Complex idea that is formed from combining much more simple ideas

• How concepts are defined in psychology

insturment

Tools used to measure a construct, based on an operational definition

• Should be both accurate and precise

Measurement

Assigning numbers to objects

• Must be both valid and reliable

reliability

Consistency. Are we getting the same results every time?

• Test retest: Do we get similar results at 2 points in time?

• Inter-Observer: Do 2 or more independent observers agree?

• Instrument/internal: Are all the items observed the same way?

nomothetic

General patterns/universal statements

• Large sample size

• Most of psych research

idiographic

Applying to the individual

• Case studies

correlation

The degree of a relationship between two variables

confounding variables

When a third variable is responsible for a cause and effect relationship

• Random assignment helps remove this

generalization

How well does our operationalization match real world circumstances?

• Studies from college students to people of other age groups and circumstances (populations)

• Highly controlled laboratory settings to real world settings (conditions)

• From a family setting to a workplace setting (settings)

theory

Proposed explanation for phenomena/association

• The 5 w’s

• Locally organized set of statements that are meant to define, describe, and explain

• Organize knowledge

• Suggest testable hypothesis

  • Survive rigorous testing without falsification

• Everything can be proven otherwise, nothing is universal

epistimology

How we study/collect knowledge

methodology

Procedure done within research

positivism

The only way to truly know something is through 1) experience 2) pure logic/math

Goal: Explanations to predict/control phenomena

Ontology: There is 1 true reality

Epistemology: Objective, detached research

Axiology: Carefully controlled research

Method: Experimental conditions, manipulations.

constructivism-interpretivism

Alternative to positivism. There can be multiple answers

• Primary Goal: Understanding lived experience

• Ontology: Multiple, equally valid, and socially constructed realities

• Epistemology: Knowledge co-constructed through interaction, with an

interactive researcher

• Axiology: Research value biases are inevitable and should be discussed at length, set aside or otherwise acknowledged

• Method: Naturalistic, highly interactive; uncovering embedded meaning through words and text.

belmont principles

• Justice

• Beneficence

• Respect for persons

Risk/benefit ratio

Is it worth it? Balancing costs to benefits

Informed consent

EXPLICIT willingness to participate in research based on CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of the nature of research

• NOT a legal arrangement, but moreso social contract

• Make clear to participants what they will be doing

• Written informed consent when risk > minimal

scientific method

Empirical approach, skeptical attitude

scientific evidence

In order of strength

1. Replication

2. Statement about causes

3. Prediction

4. Description

Steps of research process

1. Develop question

2. Generate hypothesis

3. Form definitions

4. Determine ethical issues

5. Collect/analyze data

6. Share results

causal inference

Must have covariation, time order, elimination of alternative causes

rosenthal

Ethical research is higher quality. Bad research is a waste of resources

Steps of ethical research

1. Find out the facts

2. Identify ethical issues

3. Decide what is at stake

4. Identify alternative methods

5. Decide what actions to take