Exam 1: Research Methods (Chapters 1–7)

Vocabulary flashcards covering core concepts of scientific reasoning, research validities, claims, ethical cases, psychological measurement, observational methods, and sampling methods from Chapters 1 through 7.

Empiricism

Learning through systematic observation and evidence ("Show me the data").

Theory-data cycle

A continuous, step-by-step process where scientists use data to test and improve theories (Theory $\rightarrow$ Hypothesis $\rightarrow$ Collect Data $\rightarrow$ Update Theory).

Theory

A broad explanation for why something happens.

Hypothesis

A specific statement or prediction that can be tested in a study.

collected data

the information/results collected from a study

Peer review

The process where other experts check research before it is published.

Self-correction

scientific process of detecting errors based on new feedback

how to become a better consumer of information

critically evaluate sources, evidence, and research methods

Basic research

Research focused on learning and understanding something fundamental (e.g., "how does memory work?").

Applied research

Research focused on solving a specific, practical problem (e.g., "how can we improve students memory?").

Translational research

Taking basic research findings and applying them in the real world (e.g., "using memory research to improve classroom teaching").

Quantitative research

Research involving numerical data (e.g., $75\%$ of students feel stressed).

Qualitative research

Research involving words and descriptions (e.g., students describe what stress feels like).

what is Personal experience and how can it be misleading with research

it is what happens to a person individually and can be misleading because one person's experience does not prove something is true for everyone.

what is Intuition and how can it be misleading

it is a gut feeling that something is true and it’s misleading because human brains make quick judgments that are not always accurate.

how does scientific research address limitations from ways of knowing that are misleading

systematic research is used

what is systematic research

the process of combining all previous studies on a specific question to get a reliable answer

Comparison group

A group used in scientific research to compare results.

Confound

A different factor or variable that could explain a research result.

Controlling confounds

researchers try to make groups similar / use methods so other factors are less likely to explain the results.

Thinking probabilistically

research tells us what is more or less likely to happen, not what is guaranteed.

critically evaluating knowledge claims is

testing whether an idea is supported by empirical data, logical structure, or transparent methods

what is a cognitive bias

a thinking error that affects how we interpret information

Confirmation bias

looking for information that supports what you already believe.

Hindsight bias

after something happens, you believes you knew it would happen (e.g., "I know we would lose").

Availability heuristic

thinking something is common because examples are easy to remember (e.g., hearing several shark stories makes one think shark attacks happen all the time).

Overconfidence

Being more confident in one's judgment than the evidence supports.

Bias blind spot

Thinking other people are biased but you are not (e.g., "everyone else is influenced by social media, but I'm not").

Abstract - Read (Empirical Article)

A quick summary of the whole study describing what was studied and found. (What was studied and found?)

Introduction - Read (Empirical Article)

explains why the study was conducted and stating the hypothesis. (Why did they do the study?)

Method - Read (Empirical Article)

explains exactly how the study was conducted. (How did they do it?)

Results - Read (Empirical Article)

shows what the data actually found. (What happened?)

Discussion - Read (Empirical Article)

explains what researchers think the results mean, along with study limitations and future research.

Who Participated - Evaluate (Empirical Article)

Does the sample represent the population?

What did they measure? - Evaluate (Empirical Article)

Is it valid/reliable?

Did they manipulate anything? - Evaluate (Empirical Article)

is it possible to make a causal claim?

Frequency claim

how common or frequent something is, usually involving 1 variable.

Association claim

two variables are related, where one does not cause the other.

Causal claim

one variable causes another variable, requiring strong evidence.

evidence for frequency claims

external, construct, and statistical validity

evidence for association claims

construct and statistical validity

evidence for causal claims

covariance, temporal precedence, internal validity

Covariance

$X$ and $Y$ are related.

Temporal precedence

$X$ happens before $Y$ in time.

Internal validity - Causal Claim

every other explanation ruled out / no third variable

Construct validity

The extent to which a study correctly measured or operationalized a theoretical concept.

Statistical validity

The extent to which statistical calculations support the research conclusion.

Internal Validity

the extent to which we can say X caused Y

External validity

The extent to which study results can be generalized to the broader population.

which validity matters the most for frequency claims?

external validity

which validity matters the most for association claims

construct and statistical validity

which validity matters the most for causal claims

internal validity

Conceptual variable

The idea or concept being studied (e.g., stress).

Operational variable

The specific method used to measure or manipulate an idea (e.g., measuring stress on a questionnaire).

Measured variable

when researchers observe and record a variable (e.g., recording how many hours students sleep).

Manipulated variable

researchers change or control the variable (e.g., assigning students sleep 5 hrs vs 8 hrs)

Belmont Report

An ethical guide establishing 3 main principles for human research: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

Respect for persons - Belmont Report

people choose whether to participate (informed consent) and vulnerable groups receive extra protection.

Beneficence - Belmont Report

focuses on maximizing benefits and minimizing risk/harm.

Justice - Belmont Report

participants should be selected fairly and not denied benefits.

APA ethical principles

An ethical guide establishing 5 main principles for human research: beneficience & normaleficence, fidelty & responsibility, integrity, justice, respect for peoples rights and diginity

beneficience & normaleficence - APA

do good, avoid harm

fidelty & responsibility - APA

researches have professional responsibilities and must protect participants

integrity - APA

being honest and accurate, no deception unless needed (debriefign required after)

justice - APA

fair treatment and access

respect for peoples rights and dignity - APA

privacy, confidentiality, autonomy, informed consent

Tuskegee Syphilis Study

An unethical historical study where Black men with syphilis were studied without proper informed consent and withheld effective treatment.

what did the tuskegee study violate?

respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

Milgram obedience study

participants believed they were giving strong electric shocks to another person

what did the milgram study violate

raised concerns about deception and psychological harm

A

Ab

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

A committee that reviews research involving human participants before the study begins to protect their rights, welfare, and safety.

Informed consent

makes sure participants receive information about a study's risks, benefits, and procedures before agreeing to participate.

Debriefing

The practice of fully explaining the study to participants after the study ends.

right to withdraw

participants can leave the study whenever

procedures in place to protect animal participation

minimize pain and suffering, use animals only when necessary, and provide proper care

reliability =

consistency

validity =

accurancy

relationship between reliability and validity

a measure can be reliable but not valid, but it must be reliable to be valid

Categorical variable

divides into distinct groups or categories (e.g., major, gender).

Continuous variable

represented by a numerical value (e.g., height, weight).

Self-report measurement method

a person reports their own feelings, thoughts, or behaviors.

Observational/behavioral measurement method

a researcher directly observes or records behavior.

Physiological measurement method

records bodily processes

Face validity

evaluates whether a test looks like it measures the intended concept (a depression questionnaire asks about sadness and hopelessness)

Content validity

evaluates whether a measure covers all important parts of a concept (a math test covers addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division)

Criterion validity

checks how well a test predicts a real world outcome by comparing it to an accepted standard (a new intelligence test predicts academic performance)

Convergent validity

evaluates whether a measure correlates with other measures of the same concept (a new anxiety test correlates with an established anxiety test)

Discriminant validity

evaluates whether a measure does not strongly relate to measures of different concepts (an anxiety test is not strongly related to a physical height measure)

Interrater reliability

tests if different observers agree when measuring the same behavior (two teachers rate the same childs behavior the same)

Test-retest reliability

tests if the same test gives similar results over time (taking an anxiety test today and next week and the results are the same)

Internal consistency

tests if questions on the same test consistently measure the same concept (all questions on an anxiety test measure anxiety)

Observer effect / reactivity

A threat to validity that happens when people change their behavior because they know they are being observed.

Acquiescence (yea-saying)

A response set that creates the tendency to agree with statements regardless of what someone actually thinks.

Social desirability

participants give answers that make them look better or more socially acceptable.

recall problems

people may forget or inaccurately remember past behaviors

strengths of self-reporting

easy & efficient, can measure private thoughts that can’t be observed

limitations of self-reporting

people can forget or lie

strengths of observational methods

measures actual behavior than what people say

limitations of observational methods

people can change how they act when they know they are being watched