research methods exam 1

ch 1- 5 end of ch 5 notes in here

psychology

scientific study of human behavior and mental processes

empiricism

based on data, not experience, observations, or intuition

does the date support the theory?

theory

coherent explanation to explain a phenomenon

has some evidential backing?

hypothesis

specific prediction about the outcome of a study based on previous theory

design

methodology, how will you conduct the experiment

good scientific theory

supported by data

falsifiable (chance its not supported)

parsimony (simple, simple is better than complex)

applied

tackling an actual problem

have the new meditation techniques helped children focused

basic

try to have a better understanding of the world - enhance the body of knowlege

what parts of the brain light up when someone is mediating

translational

simulate the real world

somewhere between applied and basic

translating basic into applied

what is the problem with basing experiences on experience

no comparison group/control group

no definite proof of what is causing the change

randomize clinical trial, random assignments

pool of subjects randomly assigned to groups

single blind

double blind

confounds

various different explanations for results , other variables

how to deal with confounding variables

use random assignment

• everyone has a equal chance of getting groups

controls conditions

• same diet, same sleep schedule, etc

confederate

lab worker who is in the experiment as a pretend other participant

participants don’t know they are apart of the lab running the experiment

availability heuristic

using what is available

jaws affect

present bias

not intentionally

you tend to only look into info that’s there and make a correlation

ex. you did well on an exam after a run and think cardio=good grades

failing to think about the times you did poorly after a run or did well without running

confirmation bias

focusing on the evidence we like the best

unconsciously and consciously

purposeful, not looking for those examples

bias blind spot

failing to spot bias in your own memory or thoughts

trusting authorities

trusting information coming from anyone in a perceived position of power

be skeptical and think critically of anything anyone says - celebrities and scientists

variables

trait, factor, condition that is being studied that changes from person to person

constant

trait, factor or condition that does not change

can either … a variable

measure = observed and recorded

manipulate = controlled

what variables can only be measured - not manipulated

demographics variables; race, gender, class etc

conceptual variables

needs to be constructed

ex- academic success

three types of claims

frequency claims

• how common something is - only one variables

associations claims

• variable is associated with other variable (correlated) “strong link”

causality claims

• cause and effect, one variable is responsible for changing the other; have to have one 1 manipulated and 1 measured

four big validities

construct validity

external validity

statistical validity

internal validity

construct validity

how well variables in a study are measured or manipulated

measuring height by shoe size = poor construct validity

external validity

extent to which the results of a study generalize to some larger population in other contexts

statisitcal validity

does the data support the conclusion - margin of error

internal validity

in a relationship between one variable (A) and another (B), the extent to which A, rather than some other variable (C), is responsible for changes in B

association claim

construct validity - how did they measure it

3 criteria for causation

covariance , a is associated with b

temporal precedence, show A came before B (random assignment)

internal validity

prioritizing validity

depends on the claim the research is making

frequency - external validity

Tuskegee study

thought syphilis affected white ppl and black ppl differently

maaaannny unethical procedures in the “pursuit of answers”

need to know specifics ?

unethical choices from tuckegee

participants were not treated respectfully

participants were harmed (died/painful tests)

participants were a targeted, disadvantaged social group

Milgram Obedience studied

situational authority

confederate answering questions

participant gives increasing shocks to the person on the other side

researcher would push/pressure them to continue giving shocks up until “fatal” level

potentially forever damaging the participant - “think they killed people”

The Belmont Report

1. Principle of respect for persons

2. Principle of Beneficence

3. Principle of Justice

1 principle of respect for persons

everyone should be treated as autonomous agents

individuals with diminished autonomous are entitled to protection

• children, prisoners, ppl with diminished cognitive abilities

direct application - informed consent process

• voluntariness - coercion, undue influence

• information - all necessary information, risk benefit, time

• comprehension - to clear understand

2 principle of beneficence

maximize possible benefits and minimize risk

• physical, psychology, emotional consequences

• emotional distress, psychological trauma, embarrassment, loss of employment, social stigmatization, shame or guilt, invasion of privacy, breach of confidentiality

ways to mitigate risks

confidentiality

privacy

anonymity

debriefing

emphasizing voluntary nature of participation and freedom to refuse to answer or withdraw from the study at any time without penalty

3 Justice

equitable selection of participants

only requiting the h9omeless/ a disadvantaged group

need to have a rationale to why

institutional review board

committee responsible for ensuring that research using human participants is conducted ethically

our studies do not need to go through the IRB

APA Ethical standards for Research

Standard 8. - specific to research

deception

• omission = withholding

• comission = straight lying

example of research misconduct

data fabrication and data falsificationm

how to make ethical decisions

requires a balance of priorities

research risks vs benefits

rights of individual participants vs societal gains

free participation in coercion

Legal Protection for a Laboratory Animals

the animal welfare act (AWA)

animal care and use committee (IACUC)

animal care guidelines

the four Rs

• replacement - not using animals when you can

• refinement- altering study procedure to reduce animal stress

• reduction - limiting the amount of animals used

• rehabilitation - after care>?

how to ethically balance animal welfare

researchers must follow the guidelines

researchers must be able to defend their use of animals in research

• justify, risk/benefits, how many and reducing amount

conceptual measurement

construct or theorical level

operational measurement

how it is measured or manipulated

if u have any notes on what measure (self-report, observational, phyiological etc)

is better for what type of experiment

scales of measurement

categorical variables (nominal variables, race)

quantitative variables (weight)

type of quantitative scale

ordinal scale - ranking

interval scale - no meaningful 0, shoe sizes

ratio scale - equal intervals, 0 =0, score on a test

reliable

how consistent the results are

test - retest reliability

if the results changer after retesting

some are less stable

interrater reliability

the extent to which two or more independent raters give the same or sufficiently similar judgments when evaluating the same cases under the same rules

will see dots close to the slope line - if there is a high IR

internal reliability/ internal consistency

degree to which each item in a scale is measuring the same underlying construct

scales with multiple items

different types of construct validity

does it measure and test what is it supposed to - how well are these scales or measures assuing it is intending to measure

face validity

subject ways to assess validity

it looks like what you want to measure

buzzfeed quizzes - what your mac and cheese recipes says abt u

content validity

subjective - requires more expert experience than face

the measure contains all the parts that your theory says it should contain

criterion valdity

aka predictive validity

does it predict the outcome of a behavior

IQ test - should have a high predictive validity

tighter fit to the correlation line = higher predictive validity

known groups paradigm

another way to test criterion validity

does depression inventory actually predicting ones severe depression symptoms

two groups - one known to have depression, other group unknown - give test to both groups and compare results

convergent validity

scores on the measures are related to other measures that are theoretically similar

scores should be similar

discriminant validity

opposite of convergent

scores on the measure are not related to other measures that are theoretically different