Week 1 Social Psychology Tutorial – Q&A, Popper, WEIRD Sampling & Research Methods

Lectures: 2 recorded lectures per week + 1 textbook chapter.
• Predominantly delivered by Sue; guest lectures (Week 12) by today’s tutor on Attraction & Relationships.
Assessments (ALL compulsory for APAC accreditation)
1. Final exam (MCQ + short–answer)
2. Written assignment
3. Practical 1 (individual report on team-work reflections)
4. Practical 2 (details to be released)
Mandatory attempt rule: Every assessment must be attempted to pass, unlike PSY101/102 where some hurdles could be skipped.
Tutorials: Optional attendance but strongly recommended—especially the weeks that unpack the written assignment & practicum rubrics.

Recently completed PhD on social-media addiction.
Broad interests classified under social psychology umbrella:
• Health psychology (behavioural interventions)
• Environmental psychology (promoting pro-environmental behaviour)
• Consumer psychology (persuasion, ethical consumerism)
• Problematic online behaviour & addiction
Happy to field questions on these domains at any time.

Short-Answer Questions (SAQs) now feature heavily (difference from first-year).
• Mid-trimester formative test will include SAQs; markers will provide detailed feedback.
• Final exam: choose 5 of 9 SAQs.
• University policy: no written feedback on finals (tight marking deadlines & item-bank security).
Group Practical = individual submission reflecting on past group experiences; avoids usual group-work pitfalls (drop-outs, communication issues).
Exam coverage: MCQs now span the whole unit (earlier versions sampled fewer weeks).

Typical psych studies rely on undergraduate convenience samples—cheap/free via research-participation requirements.
WEIRD acronym (Henrich et al.):
Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic.
When is a student sample acceptable?
• When research question explicitly targets that demographic (e.g., exam stress in university students).
• Less acceptable when studying phenomena expected to differ by education, age, SES, culture.
Generalisation risks & documented biases:
• Moral reasoning—WEIRD participants prioritise individual rights/harm.
• Visual illusions—greater susceptibility to right-angle illusions (e.g., Müller-Lyer) due to carpentered environments.
• Economic games—WEIRD groups show higher fairness norms.
Student comments: older/online cohorts bring missing life-experience; group discussed limitation of over-reliance on 20-year-old mean-age samples.

Issues: survey fatigue, AI bots farming paid studies, gender imbalance (~ $\tfrac{2}{3}$ female when unpaid).
Brainstormed alternatives:
• Charitable micro-donation on participant’s behalf.
• Value-add resources (e-book, health tips).
• Community meet-ups for discussion.
• Offering study results summary (satisfies curiosity, non-financial).

Children are conditioned via art/math education to interpret perspective & right angles, embedding certain perceptual heuristics.
Key illusions referenced:
• Müller-Lyer – arrowheads warp length perception.
• Ponzo/rail-track illusion – converging lines imply depth; identical bars appear unequal.
• Moon illusion – horizon moon appears larger despite constant retinal size.
Non-carpentered environments (e.g., tribal settings) show drastically reduced illusion susceptibility.
Link to time perception: some Indigenous cultures conceive time cyclically; illustrates how language & environment sculpt cognition.

Popper: science advances by attempting to falsify, not verify. You can be certain a theory is wrong, never certain it is right.
Critiqued media quotes on Higgs “God Particle”: calling Standard Model “complete” contradicts Popperian openness to refutation.

Black Swan Problem
• Hypothesis “All swans are white” can be refuted by a single black swan (recorded in WA in 1800s).
• Demonstrates asymmetry of proof vs. disproof.
1919 Solar-Eclipse Test
• Einstein predicted starlight deflection $\theta \approx 1.75''$ ; Newton predicted $\theta =0$ .
• Observation matched Einstein ⇒ falsified Newtonian gravity for light.
• Yet General Relativity remains provisional—awaits future challenging data.

Astrology & acupuncture critiqued not on outcome accuracy but on methodological failings:
• Vague, non-quantified predictions.
• Ad-hoc explanations for negative evidence.
• No specification of observations that would falsify the model.

Both terms refer to an explanatory framework that:
1. Specifies variables & their relations.
2. Generates precise, testable predictions.
Example: Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM)—predicts when fear appeals trigger danger-control (behaviour change) vs. fear-control (defensive avoidance) based on perceived threat $\times$ efficacy.

Observational – naturalistic or structured; no variable manipulation.
Correlational – measures variables, computes associations ( $r$ ). Cannot infer causality.
Experimental – manipulates IV, controls confounds; enables causal inference.
Students must correctly label each chosen article when compiling the assignment.

Two-monitor slideshow tip: select the screen that hosts presentation OR duplicate displays.
Recording available on CloudDeakin; chat transcript retained.
Next tutorial will:
• Finish research-method refresher
• Begin Week-2 topical content.

Treat theories as best current maps, not truth.
Scrutinise sample limitations & articulate generalisability caveats.
When designing or critiquing studies, ask: What result would falsify this claim?
For assignments:
• Prioritise tutorials on assessment walkthroughs.
• Practice SAQ writing early—use formative test feedback.
Keep notes on citation style & research-method labels for annotated bibliography.