week 4 module Flashcards
(29 cards)
define causation
-cause is partly responsible for the effect, effect partly dependant on the cause
-x->y
psychologists want to identify with the causes of everyday problems
attempt to develope assessments to predict
-screening if there is a problem
-profiling[who is at risk]
-evaluating the right treatment
what is the physiological debate of causation
- the cause/ the creations of thoughts
- how ideas and info is processed[dualism]
-bottom -up processing - whereby the brain receives new input from external world
-top down processing where the mind directs sensory system to recognise important info [mind body]
what determines causation?
determining causation,
- how important is chronological order
eg. conventions of story telling
infer causation when:
2 events
- occur in the same space
- when one immediately follows the other in time
all theories of learning rely on chronological order
how to determine causation in everyday thinking?
- simple physical examples seems clear, eg dominos
however this is more complex in everyday.
in psychology causation is more complex - for example IQs with nature and nature, we were happy to accept that, but how does it actually work, simple saying human behaviour and causation is very complicated.
example: does smoking cause lung cancer or do peer groups?
the problem with this is that lung cancer does not always happen for smokers and the other way around.
but 75 percent of teenager take up smoking belong to a peer group that smokes.
so do peer groups cause lung cancer? [not a direct cause]
why causation in psychology is inferred
- dose response relationship - eg higher dose of smoker. higher amount of lung cancer
- removal of condition, reduces the prevalence of the disease, eg ex smokers have a reduced risk of lung cancer.
- the condition must precede the disease, meaning smoking must come before the lung cancer
- causal condition must be theoretically plausible
- studies must consistently reveal relationship
- the strength of the relationship must be high
- relationship must be demonstrated with well designed studies
what is he difference between inductive and deductive thinking?
inductive reasoning goes from the specific observations to broad generalisations
- deductive reasoning goes from a general theory to the specific predictions
define inductive reasoning
- making conclusion on set of observable data. has it been observed as true many times then that means it will be true in instances of inductive reasoning
obersavtion -> inferential conclusion
however what if we consider different factors like upbringing or culture
example of causation problem of inductive reasoning
inductive reasoning
premise 1: all swans in Europe are white
inductive conclusion; all swans are white
but what about Australian black swans?
but most scientific theories are based on inductive reasoning.
eg. Newtons theory of gravity.
something discovered is not proven, ideas of causation but no proof
define deductive reasoning
starts with rule, which is already known to be true. then conclusion is made about something specific.
eg Piagets theory of cognitive development:
premise 1: all European children have trouble with the conservation of liquid
premise 2: all children development through the same cognitive phases
therefore it can be deducted that indigenous Australian children would have the same issue.
continue to define inductive reasoning
conclusion reached with deductive reasoning, logically sound, however it has to assume thAT THE PRECEDING PREMISES ARE THE TRUE.
most scientific search uses deductive reasoning and tries to falsify he premise of thoery, try and find the circumstance where the premise may be untrue.
define falsification
- theories had to be proven
- scientific theories were to be proven and verified by
- theories had to be proven
- observable evidence - trust senses [ naive realism, eg very swan observed in Europe is white
- inductive reasoning, eg therefore all swans are right.
this then presents a problem with the conclusions of inductive reasoning, modern science needs deductive reasoning, eg find a swan that is not white
what is the concept of the oedipus
- all males move through the phallic stage that must resolve the oedipus complex
during phallic stage, male children desire an exclusive immature sexual relationship with their other and perceive the father as a powerful rival - he studied dreams and found that male children often dreamt of their fathers distractions, was this because they saw the father as a rival or because the father way potentially physically abusive?
define then hypothetic-deductive approach
- not verification but falsification
karl popper, fundamental to good science
easy to obtain confirmations of theory
- but science should establish tests that improve theories
- confirmations should only count if it involves risky predictions
what defines hypothetic-deductive approach?
scientifici method
observe events
propose theories[inductive]
deductive:
deduce/predict consequences
formulate testable hypothesis
create a null version of the hypothesis [that is there is no difference between group 1 and group 2]
- test and evaluate the hypothesis - falsify
describe bandoras study
- interested in the cause of childhood aggression.
developed 2 theoretical perspectives:
1. psychoanalysis - daily actives lead to frustration and tension
2. behaviourism - learn by observing and modelling other people
- either being or watching physical aggression decreases aggression level: catharsis-> watch violent TV leads to decrease in aggression
- either being or watching physical aggression increases levels of modelling.-> watch violent TV leads to increase in aggression
children watch violent or non violent tv ->then get children to play.
conclusion: children were more aggression after watching violent TV, which falsifies the psychoanalytic predictions.
implications:
- attempt to discredit major theory
- too often researches do not to critical reproach. leads to confirmation bias.
in science: don’t prove theory correct but attempt to falsify theories through research.
to do this: develope null or neutral hypothesis and try and show that it is true.
what is type one error?
accept something is correct when it is false, eg this can lead to creation of myths.
what is a type 2 error?
not very critical, null. the study did not show anything, therefore didn’t really challenge the view.
for example childhood vaccinations and autism
-MMR vaccine controversy, journal indicated a relationship between autism and vaccinations, this was a type 1 error. even after the journal was published and falsified, the impact was already done.
the most damaging hoax of the last 100 years.
what are the implications of everyday emergencies and type 1 errors- emergencies
hit - stop working on someone is dead
miss - continue to work on someone who is dead
false alarm - stop working on someone who is still alvie
correct rejection - continue to work on someone who is still alive
type one error:disgnose some as dead when they are alive
criminal justice
-jury must decide as guilty or innocent
implications: mis punishing
innocent person in jail - type one error.
there are most errors in rapes and murders
- eye witness testimony can be wrong.
-purposefull misrepresentations, pressure put on them over a long period of time, omits a false confession
type one errors in medicine
hit, miss, false alarm, correct rejection
eg thalidomide
- never tested on pregnant women or animals.
helped pregnant women with morning sickness
stops the elongation of arms and legs.
took Australian man a number of years to convince the world. can treat some forms of cancer - leprosy. under strict conditions
peace versus war, type one error
modern wars are typicallyy localised.
so there can be peaceful operations canoe done in the same area. people then have to decide on different planes- whether is a passenger plane or is It a war plane.
two famous instances - Malaysia flight 17 shot down over Ukraine
iran airlines shot done by us - inquiry launched - type one error.
