Exam #1

Question 1

Empiricism vs. skepticism +

Answer 1

Empiricism (empirical method/research)-using evidence from senses (sight, hearing, touch)/from instruments (thermometers, timers, photographs, weight scales, questionnaires) as the basis for conclusion - knowledge comes from observation.
-empiricists aim to be systematic, rigorous, to make their work independently verifiable by others observers or scientists
-most reliable basis for conclusions when compared with other forms of reasoning (experience/intuition)
Skepticism:
-philosophy that ideas must be evaluated on the basis of careful logic & results from scientific investigations

Question 2

Hypothesis (or prediction) vs Theory (general) +

Answer 2

Hypothesis - It’s the specific outcome the researcher expects to observe from a particular study, if the theory is accurate.

Prediction: A guess at the outcome of a study
- Must follow directly from the hypothesis
- Needs to be testable
- Must include specific variables and methodologies.

Theory - set of statements that describes general principles about how variables (measured) relate to one another (on which the practice of an activity is based).
- Organize and explain past research
- Generate new knowledge
- Can be modified by new research

Question 3

Variable vs Constant

Answer 3

Variable - an attribute that varies, having at least two levels, or values. There are 4 kinds of variable: dependent variable, independent variable, manipulated variable and measured.
E.g. “Knowing when news is fake” is the variable, and its levels are knowing when news is fake, and not knowing when fake.

Constant - an attribute that could potentially vary but that has only one level in the study in question.
E.g. “15% of Americans smoke,” nationality is not a variable because everyone in the study is American. In this example, nationality would be a constant.

Question 4

association vs causal claims common verbs+

Answer 4

Association: tied/ linked to, relates, connected to, associated w
Causal: helps, enhances, increases, decreases

Question 5

Positive association vs negative vs zero association+

Answer 5

Positive association is an association in which high goes with high and low goes with low;
E.g. - high rates of exercise go with higher levels of pay, and low rates of exercise go with lower levels of pay.

Negative association - high goes with low and low goes with high. E.g. - high rates of coffee go with less depression, and low rates of coffee go with more depression.

Zero association (or no association) - a lack of systematic association between two variables.

Question 6

construct VS external VS statistical validities of frequency claims +

Answer 6

Construct validity refers to how well a conceptual variable is operationalized. When you ask how well a study measured or manipulated a variable, you are interrogating the construct validity—be it smiling, smoking, texting, gender identity, food insecurity, or knowing when news is fake. For example, when evaluating the construct validity of a frequency claim, the question is how well the researchers measured their variable of interest. Consider this claim: “39% of teens text while driving.” There are several ways to measure this variable.

External validity - an indication of how well the results of a study generalize to, or represent, individuals or contexts besides those in the study itself. e.g. Gallup researchers had simply asked people who clicked on the Gallup website whether they smiled yesterday, and 74% of them said they did, the researcher cannot claim that 74% of the entire world did.

Internal validity - Frequency claim has nothing to do with internal validity.

Statistical validity - The extent to which statistical conclusions derived from a study are accurate and reasonable. To understand statistical validity, it helps to know that the value we get from a single study is not an objective truth. Instead, it’s an estimate of that value in some population. E.g., for the report claiming that “39% of teenagers text while driving,” researchers interviewed a sample of about 9,000 teen drivers to estimate the behavior of the population of all U.S. teenage drivers.

Question 7

construct VS external VS statistical validities of association claims+

Answer 7

Construct validity of association claim - a researcher measures two variables, so you have to assess the construct validity of each variable. For the headline “Study links coffee consumption to lower depression in women,” you should ask how well the researchers measured coffee consumption and how well they measured depression.

External validity - it’s asking whether it can generalize to other populations, as well as to other contexts, times, or places. For example, the association between coffee consumption and depression came from a study of women. Will the association generalize to men?

Internal validity - association claim has nothing to do with internal validity.

Statistical validity - considers how strong the estimated association is and how precise that estimate is, and it considers other estimates of the same association. Some associations —such as between education and income—are quite strong. People with bachelor’s degrees usually earn much more money than those with high school degrees—about 66% more income over a 40-year career.

Question 8

construct VS external VS statistical validities of causal claims +

Answer 8

Construct validity of causal claim - Take the headline “Pretending to be Batman helps kids stay on task.” First, we could ask about the construct validity of the measured variable in this study. How well was “staying on task” measured? Then we would need to interrogate the construct validity of the manipulated variable. E.g. Was the costume and the question “Is Batman working hard?” the best manipulation of the construct, “pretending to be a hardworking hero”?

Internal validity - This is the priority! Was the study an experiment? Does the study achieve temporal precedence? Does the study control for alternative explanations by randomly assigning participants to groups? For example, to say “Pretending to be Batman helps kids stay on task” is to claim that pretending to be a hardworking hero like Batman
CAUSES increased persistence.

External validity - It is rarely prioritized in an experiment!! The study tested 6-year-old children from Minneapolis, Minnesota. Can this sample generalize to children from other states or other countries? Would it generalize to younger kids?

Statistical validity - To start, we would ask: How large was the difference between the groups? In this example, participants in the Batman condition persisted about 60% of the time, compared with 35% of the time for those in the self-immersed condition— nearly twice as long. That seems a large effect. We can also ask whether this study has been repeated—whether we can consider estimates from multiple studies over time.

Question 9

Zimbardo’s prison experiment design; findings guards vs prisoners. + (main points)

Answer 9

Design - What the researchers did:
- Mock prison
- Randomly assigned ½ to be guards, ½ to be prisoners

How the participants responded (within days)
Guards treated prisoners poorly, inflicted punishment
Prisoners became rebellious or depressed

Zimbardo concluded that people quickly conform to social roles, even when the role goes against their moral principles. Furthermore, he concluded that situational factors were largely responsible for the behaviour found, as none of the participants had ever demonstrated these behaviours previously.

Question 10

What are the ways that intuition is biased? +

Answer 10

1) present bias (Failing to think about what we CANNOT see), +
2) confirmation bias (Focusing on the evidence we like best), +
3) being swayed by a good story (accepting conclusion because it makes sense/feels natural), +
4) availability heuristic (Persuaded by what comes easily to mind) +
5) biased about being biased (blind spot: belief that we are unlikely to fall prey to other biases; Biases do not apply to me) +

Question 11

Present bias? +

Answer 11

A bias in intuition, in which people incorrectly estimate the relationship between an event and its outcome, focusing on times the event and outcome are present, while failing to consider evidence that is absent and harder to notice.
E.g: expressed frustration-felt better, people text me when I think about them

Question 12

Confirmation bias +

Answer 12

The tendency to consider only the evidence that supports our hypothesis, including asking only the questions that will lead to the expected answer. We “cherry- pick” the information we take in—seeking and accepting only the evidence that supports what we already think.

E. g. Those who were told in the study their IQ was low spent more time looking at articles that criticized the validity of IQ tests and vice versa.

Question 13

availability heuristic?+

Answer 13

a bias in intuition, in which people incorrectly estimate the frequency of something, persuaded on instances that easily come to mind rather than using all possible evidences in evaluating a conclusion.
- Wrongly estimate how often something happens-vivid, memorable, recent events.
E.g: shark attacks seem frequent but are rare; students always use phones in class; number of Muslim women on campus (see wearing hijabs)-stand out

Question 14

What are sections of APA paper?+

Answer 14

1) Abstract
-concise summary of article (120 words)
-briefly describes study’s hypothesis, method & major results
- helps you decide whether each article describes the kind of research you are looking for, or whether you should move on to the next article.

2) Introduction
-1st few paragraphs explain topic of study
-middle paragraphs lay out background for research: What theory is tested? What past studies found?
Why is study important?
-final paragraph states specific research questions, goals, or hypotheses for the current study

3) Literature review- meta analysis and it also tells about past studies (ask)
meta-analysis - A way of mathematically averaging the effect sizes of all the studies that have tested the same variables to see what conclusion that whole body of evidence supports.
- a statistical process that combines the data of multiple studies to find common results and to identify overall trends
4) Methods
-explains in detail how researchers conducted study
-contains info about participants, materials, procedure, apparatus
-gives enough detail, so that the study could be repeated without asking questions

5) Results
-describes quantitative & qualitative results of the study, including statistical tests used to analyze data
-provides tables & figures that summarize key results

6) Discussion
-1st paragraph summarizes research question & methods & indicates how well results of study
supported hypothesis
-discusses study’s importance
-discuss alternative explanations for their data & pose questions raised by research
E.g: new hypothesis, creative & unusual method to test a familiar hypothesis, unique participants

7) References
-full bibliographic listing of all sources the authors cited in writing their article; readers can locate studies/look for additional articles

Question 15

What’s validity?+

Answer 15

refers to the appropriateness of a conclusion or decision, and in general, a claim is reasonable, accurate, and justifiable.

There are 4 kinds of validities: construct validity, external validity, internal validity and statistical validity.

Question 16

What are 3 main principles of Belmont report doc?+

Answer 16

Belmont report developed as a result of Tuskegee study (Syphilis)
-applied within US
● Principle of respect for persons (autonomy) - participants are treated as autonomous and free to decide whether want to participate - entitled to informed consent (info about project, its risks & benefits).
- People with less autonomy (children, prisoners, people with intellectual/developmental disabilities) entitled to special protection in regards to informed consent-may NOT understand procedures to provide an informed consent, susceptible to force
-unduly influence (incentive too attractive to refuse like too much money)

● Principle of beneficence - research should bring benefits with minimal risks, as determined by a risk-benefit analysis.
The researchers withheld benefits from the men in the Syphilis study. Today, researchers may not withhold treatments that are known to be helpful to study participants.
-protect participants from harm & ensure participants’ well-being. Some institutions ask researchers to estimate how stressful a study’s situation would be compared with the normal stresses of everyday life.
- Another potential risk is having people’s personal information (their behavior, mental health information, or private reactions) revealed to others. To prevent harm, researchers make participant information either anonymous or confidential.
-if studying only one ethnic group - demonstrate that problem is prevalent in that group/institution.

● Principle of justice - a fair balance between the kinds of people who participate in research and the kinds of people who benefit from it. For example, if a research study discovers that a procedure is risky or harmful, the participants, unfortunately, “bear the burden” of that risk, while other people—those not in the study—may benefit from the research results.
- sample research participants from the same population that benefits from research
-balance between people who participate in research.
-participants-kinds of people who would benefit from results.
E.g: violates if studying prisoners, only because they are convenient group, acceptable if study institutionalized people for tuberculosis as tuberculosis prevalent in institutions.

Question 17

5 APA ethical principles+

Answer 17

1. Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

• maximize benefits and minimize any possible harmful effects of participation.

-do NOT cause suffering

-conduct research that benefits society

2. Fidelity and Responsibility

-establish relationships of trust

• say what you mean and do what you say: honor appointment, provide compensation or credit for participation, etc.

-accept responsibility for professional behavior in research, teaching, clinical practice

E.g: psychologist teaching cannot serve as therapist to students/must avoid sexual relationships with clients

3. Integrity

• don’t steal and cheat or engage in fraud, or intentional misrepresentation of fact (Ex: do not fabricate data)

-be accurate, truthful, honest as researcher, teacher, practitioner in the science, teaching, and practice of psychology.

E.g: professors are obligated to teach accurately, therapists must stay current on empirical evidence for therapeutic techniques

4. Justice

-treat all groups of people fairly

-equal quality in the processes, procedures and services being conducted by psychologists

-sample research participants from the same population that benefits from research

5. Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity

-people-anonymous agents

-protect people’s rights to privacy, consent for treatment/research, confidential treatment

-avoid coercion (force) of populations less able to give informed consent

-be aware of biases on the work

• respect cultural, individual, and role differences

Question 18

Plagiarism. What are its kinds?+

Answer 18

defined as representing the ideas or words of others as one’s own. A formal definition states that plagiarism is “the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit”
Word-for-word plagiarism: Writer copies a section of another person’s work word-for-word without providing quotation marks or a citation.

Paraphrasing plagiarism: Words are indirectly copied, but the ideas are copied without attribution.

Researchers also should not recycle their own text, or self- plagiarize. When researchers publish multiple articles, they may end up recycling portions of the Method section from previous work. But they should not repeat sentences in the Introduction or Discussion section, and especially Results section.

Question 19

Asch line study- design and findings+

Answer 19

Normative social influence:

• influence from the desire to avoid others’ disapproval and social sanctions (ridicule, barbs, ostracism).

Line judgment study (Asch, 1956):

• They had 3 lines, and they had men looking on line if it’s the same length and they used confederates, but participants didn’t know that. Confederates pick a line, which is wrong and researchers check conformity of the participant.
• 75% of participants conformed at least once.
• Overall, participants conformed 33% of the time.
• When you are alone and only with confederate without public, participants conform less.
• They gave participant a friend, who picked correct answer, so it dropped conformity.

Question 20

operational definition (or variable) +

Answer 20

The specific way in which a concept of interest is measured or manipulated as a variable in a study.
When testing hypotheses with empirical research, they create operational definitions of variables, also known as operational variables.
E.g: conceptual-spending time socializing; research - asked participants how often do they spend an evening alone, socialize with friends, see relatives in a typical week.

Question 21

research (science) vs intuition +

Answer 21

• Personal experience is one way we might reach a conclusion. Another is intuition—using our senses about what seems “natural,” or attempting to think about things “logically.” While we may believe our intuition is a good source of information, it can lead us to make less effective decisions. Because of our biases, we tend to notice and actively seek information that confirms our ideas. To be an empiricist, you must guard against common biases when you look at the data.
• Researchers ask: Compared to what? Rather than base their beliefs on their personal conviction, researchers collect data on a comparison group. Knowing they should not simply go along with the story everyone believes, they train themselves to test their intuition with systematic, empirical observations.

Question 22

biased about being biased? blind spot?+

Answer 22

Even when we read about the biased ways people think (such as in a research methods textbook like this one), we nevertheless conclude that those biases do not apply to us. We have what’s called a bias blind spot, the belief that we are unlikely to fall prey to the other biases previously described.
e.g. The bias blind spot: A physician who receives a free gift from a pharmaceutical salesperson might believe she won’t be biased by it, but she may also believe other physicians will be persuaded by such gifts to prescribe the drug company’s medicines.

Question 23

research is probabilistic+

Answer 23

Behavioral research is probabilistic, which means that its findings are not expected to explain all the cases all the time (i.e., there are exceptions)

Question 24

What is curvilinear association? +

Answer 24

An association between two variables which is not a straight line; instead, as one variable increases, the level of the other variable increases and then decreases (or vice versa).

This association exists, for example, between age and the use of health care services. As people get older, their use of the health care system decreases up to a point. Then, as they approach age 60 and beyond, health care use increases again.

Question 25

What’s internal validity?+

Answer 25

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. Was the study an experiment? Does the study achieve temporal precedence? Does the study control for alternative explanations by randomly assigning participants to groups?

Question 26

Tuskegee study?+

Answer 26

a study to record the natural history of syphilis in hopes of justifying treatment programs for African Americans; The researchers wanted to study the effects of untreated syphilis on the men’s health over the long term.
No consent
No treatment provided even when penicillin found to be effective
Planned to last 6 months but lasted 40 years until 1972
Men received free medical exams, free meals and burial insurance

Question 27

Jane Elliott experiment (ask)+

Answer 27

*Investigated racism in school age children in 1968
*Ethical concerns
“Blue Eyes - Brown Eyes” Experiment Anti-Racism
3-d grade kids
She asked her students if they wanted to participate in an exercise to see how discrimination worked. The students agreed. The next day, she separated the children with blue eyes from the children with brown eyes. The blue-eyed children were told they were the superior group and given extra privileges such as more food portions at lunch, more playtime and they sat at the front of the class. The blue-eyed children were encouraged to play only with other blue-eyed children and ignore those with brown eyes.

The brown-eyed children wore collars made of fabric to identify them as a minority group and made to sit in the back rows.
- The following week, Elliott reversed the exercise, making the brown-eyed children superior.
At the end of the exercise, the students were asked to write down what they learned. The students wrote that it was not right to be judged by the color of their eyes or skin.