Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
observation
question
hypothesis
test
analysis
conclusion
REPEAT
abstract
introduction
method
results
discussion
references
general summary of the article
always start with the abstract
will go through other existing research
might mention theory that based its entire study on
will always mention participants
how they were recruited
will always talk about material used in the study
anything they're using in their study
will include measures & procedures
more technical
will try to summarize what certain terms mean
go over major findings and why they found it
talk about limitations & future directions
will cite every article for this paper
any methods that they borrowed, etc..
"or" = gives you more
"and" = gives you more
"not" = gives you less
asterisk = helps you get all related terms
PsycINFO (library in UH)
Google Scholar
describing a phenomenon or population
difference between groups
relation between variables
mediator of relation between variables
moderator of relation between variables
focuses on a SINGLE variable within a SINGLE population (ONE variable, ONE population)
works in: --> percent --> proportion --> frequency --> amount
focuses on the difference between two or more groups on a variable --> observational --> causal
you can look at only 2 or many more
focuses on a positive or negative relation between two variables
POSITIVE relation: as one variable increases, the other increases
NEGATIVE relation: as one variable decreases, the other decreases
focuses on a variable that EXPLAINS the relation between two other variables
EXPLAINING a relationship !!
EX: pizza --> increase work motivation (the mediator) --> productivity
focuses on a variable that CHANGES the relation between two other variables
CHANGES. a relationship
EX: experience increases, salary also increases --> moderator of GENDER may change strength/direction
descriptive
correlational
experimental
aim to describe and PREDICT behavior
explain the relation between two or more variables
aim to demonstrate a causal relation --> A causes B
its own category with its own goal
the only type of research that can provide a cause & effect relationship
frequency claims
association claims
causal claims
describes a particular rate or degree of a single variable
EX: 15% of undergrads live on campus
telling you the frequency of behavior
when one variable changes, the other variable changes too
two measured variables
TERMS: predict, covary, related, associated, correlated
EX: in a scatterplot, it shows us the pattern of responses between two variables
a claim arguing that a specific change in one variable is responsible for influencing the value of another variable
TERMS: cause, increase, decrease, influence, affect, change
variable whose values are observed and recorded
EX: note-taking (electronic or written)
variable whose values a researcher controls
EX: assign how you note-take
variable whose values are NAMES
sometimes referred to as a categorical variable
EX: religion
distance between each consecutive value is equal
EX: age (53 & 54 yrs are considered the same)
has an absolute point
zero means a lack of that variable
the distance between each consecutive value is not equal
EX: placement in marathon (1st, 2nd, 3rd place) --> distance between each runner may not be the same
X
manipulated
applied in experimental research
Y
measured
applied in experimental research
focuses on the variable as an abstract, theoretical construct
what IS happiness?
focuses on the observable or measurable construct
how will I MEASURE happiness?
self-report
other-report
observational
physiological
ask people to report their own thoughts, behaviors, and experiences either in real time or retrospectively
BENEFITS: --> often efficient (you can do it very easily and inexpensively while getting lots of info.) --> privileged access (you would be able to tap into what people's thoughts and perspectives are just by asking them)
DRAWBACKS: --> potentially biased (in the way that questions are asked which may not be accurate) (the answers may be biased AKA providing a socially acceptable response)
ask teachers, caregivers, or other observers to report about someone else
BENEFITS: --> often efficient --> different perspective (getting more of an unbiased perception by asking somebody else)
DRAWBACKS: --> potentially biased --> potentially distorted
capture a variable through behavioral expressions of it
BENEFITS: --> more objective --> EX: counting how many drinks someone has in a night
DRAWBACKS: --> less efficient (time-consuming) --> situational (distorted based on the context in which you're measuring) (behavior may be different in different contexts)
capture a variable through physiological indications of it
BENEFITS: --> more objective
DRAWBACKS: --> less efficient (very time-consuming and expensive)
test-retest
interrater
internal
consistency in the pattern of scores
most relevant for constructs that are theoretically STABLE
EX: personality, intelligence
EX: measuring head circumference --> you should still get scores in the same range
independent observers come up with consistent findings
most relevant for observational measures
EX: operationalizing aggression on a 1-10 scale
only relevant for measures that combine multiple items that measure the same construct
people should respond consistently across items
EX: do you get energy from people? = yes --> which means: do you get energy from being alone? = no
ANSWERS MUST BE CONSISTENT
face validity
content validity
criterion validity
convergent validity
discriminant validity
does it appear to measure what it says it is measuring?
align well with conceptual def.
subjective (making your own judgement calls)
does the measure capture ALL PARTS of the defined construct?
EX: student achievement defining performance in school (operationalization = measure test scores in math class) --> low content validity because it's only looking at ONE content of that goal
subjective (saying "that doesn't capture what it needed to capture")
EX: depression
the measure is associated with a concrete behavioral outcome it theoretically SHOULD be associated with
it SHOULD make sense it is associated with, theoretically
criterion: focuses on KEY BEHAVIORAL outcomes
convergent: focuses on PATTERN among SIMILAR measures
does the measure discriminate between constructs that different?
what the construct involves & doesn't involve
the extent to which we can identify a single, trustworthy explanation of results
threats to internal validity = aspects of the study that limit interpretation of its findings
the extent to which we can GENERALIZE results of research beyond specific instances in the study
threats to external validity = aspects of the study that limit application of its findings
scatterplots
correlation coefficients --> can assess criterion, convergent, and divergent validity
known-paradigm --> can assess criterion validity
scatterplots --> test-retest reliability --> interrater reliability
correlation coefficient --> test-retest reliability --> interrater reliability --> internal reliability
the smaller subset of the target population included in your study
EX: UH students = pop. --> UH students in a certain class = sample
probability sampling
non-probability sampling
every member of the target population is known and their selection into your sample is through a RANDOM PROCESS
each member of the target population has AN EQUAL CHANCE of being selected for the sample
every member of the pop. has an equal chance of being selection
time-consuming, sometimes impossible, very expensive
EX: using a random number generator --> birthday party = putting names into a jar and choosing names 4 teams
individuals are randomly selected from predetermined categories
within each category, you are still going through a randomized process
EX: race, gender --> studying taxes = stratify based on income and randomly sample within income brackets
systematic = sample based on two randomly selected numbers --> EX: start with 7th person, select every 3rd person
cluster: randomly selecting from pre-existing clusters --> randomly select 3 high schools and include all students from those schools
using a sample of people are easy to contact and are readily available to participate
easy access, not resource intensive
most common technique in psych. research
EX: sona = sampling college students in psychology courses
similar to stratified random sampling
fulfilling a quota for each specified subset using non-probability methods
EX: college sample = first years, second years, etc.. --> smokers VS non smokers
manipulation
measurement
comparison
independent variable (IV)
variable w/ categories within which participants grouped
manipulate IV to create two or more conditions
dependent variable (DV)
outcome of interest that is measured
measure all conditions (all levels of IV)
EX: measure anxiety symptoms
compare average (the mean) scores on DV for each condition
happens in the analysis step
"which group has a higher level of anxiety?"
control group
comparison group
alternate intervention (comparing something to something else)
can have multiple comparison conditions
all extraneous variables are control methodologically
(extraneous variables = all variables other than IV & DV)
anything that can influence your outcome
EX: desire to go to class, mental/physical health
removing an extraneous variable by ensuring it applies to every participant
we make sure everyone gets the SAME experience
EX: measure during semester
random assignment: assigning participants to condition randomly.
EX: heads -> condition A ; tails -> condition B
each participant has an equal chance of being in each condition
independent groups design
within groups designs
factorial designs
separate groups of participants are placed into different levels of the independent variable
"between subjects" or "between groups" design
BENEFITS: --> confirm that random assignment worked! --> track CHANGE in performance over time
COSTS: --> different participants need to be recruited for each condition which can be difficult & expensive
participants are randomly assigned to the IV and are tested on the DV once
EX: randomly assigning students to take notes on their laptops or on paper, and BOTH are taking a comprehension test
exposing students to the IV and collect the DV once
participants are randomly assigned to the IV and are tested on the DV twice - BEFORE & AFTER exposure to IV
EX: testing students' GRE scores, then putting them thru a certain class, and then testing their GRE scores again
ALL participants experience ALL levels of the IV
BENEFITS: --> participants in your groups are equivalent because they are the same participants and serve as their own controls --> within-groups designs require fewer participants than other designs
COSTS: --> internal validity threats --> practice & carryover effects may affect the outcome
participants are measured more than once, after being exposed to each level of the IV
EX: first, testing choco. with confederate, then rate choco. then, taste choco. alone, then rate choco. --> you are getting all the conditions of the IV
participants are exposed to all levels of IV at roughly THE SAME TIME, and a single DV is measured (& shared)
DV is often looking at attitudes or preference
two or more independent variables (IVs)
researchers will study each possible combination of the IVs
EX: young drivers, old drivers, on phones, not on phones
2x2 design
whether the effect of one IV depends on the level of another IV
effect of Independent Variable A depending on level of Independent Variable B
Overall effect of Independent Variable A (collapsing across B)
Overall effect of Independent Variable B (collapsing across A)
doesn't use random assignment
BENEFITS: --> high external validity --> real world examples --> solution for ethical constraints
COSTS: --> no randomization (lower internal validity)
has at least ONE experimental group and ONE comparison group
no random assignment to conditions
EX: organ donations = doctors want to measure those who use the opt in VS opt out method for being a donor
has at least one experimental group and one comparison group
no random assignment to condition
EX: looking at plastic surgery and self-esteem
you know there is some intervention that's gonna happen but not WHEN it's gonna happen
measurement overtime with some intervention in between
when researcher doesn't know when that intervention happens and has no control over it