RM Exam 1

The non-scientific approach

intuition, anecdotal evidence

Scientific approach

empiricism - data-based, reported accutately, peer-reviewed, replicated

falsifiability

can be proven wrong by a test, isn’t fantastical

Goals of behavioral research

Description, prediction, determine cause of behavior, explain

one-tailed hypothesis

phrased as to pointing to one side

two-tailed hypothesis

phrased as going either way

Belmont Report (1979)

The code of ethics for psychological experiments

Beneficience

Do no harm, minimize risks and maximize benefits

Justice

Risks and benefits should be equally distributed

Autonomy (respect for persons)

respect people & their informed consent

Fidelity and responsibility

We should be responsible and build trust

Informed consent

incl. risks, benefits, study goals, side effects, free to leave

Informed consent no’s

no coercion, no incentives so high you can’t say no

IC not needed

public behavior, naturalistic observation, anon qs

naturalistic observation

people watching, basically

naturalistic observation pros

removes demand characteristics, descriptive, realistic

naturalistic observation cons

difficult, time-consuming, bias, ethical issues

structured observation

lab setting, setting up an event to occur to observe

Case study pros

detailed observation, descriptive data, new or rare phenomena

case study cons

can’t generalize, observer bias

Survey pros

large sample size, quick, easy

Survey cons

self-reporting, wording, no always predictive of behavior or representing the sample

correlational research pros

see how variables are related, predict variables

correlational research cons

can’t draw causal conclusions

experiment pros

control variables, can draw causal conclusions

experiment cons

unrealistic, generalizability issues, ethical constraints

Quasi-experiments

no IV manip, naturally occurring groups, DV measured

Quasi-experiments pros

can measure topics we can’t assign

Quasi-experiments cons

no causal conclusions

Causal relationship conditions

temporal precedence, covariation, no alternate explanations

risk-benefit analysis

IRB conducted weighing of risks/benefits

sampling bias

not random assignment - selected

demand characteristics

Instructions that hint to the expectations of the researcher

between vs within design

participants experience one or the other conditions vs both

Stuttering study violated justice

Didn’t balance risks and benefits - left kids stuttering

Implications/applications of the study

discussion

anonymity

conceals participant identity

confidentiality

conceals participant data

confounding variables

extraneous variable that appears to be correlated with the IV

illusory correlation

thinking 2 events are related bc of proximity