Psych 205

• authority
• personal experience
• rationalism (suing reasoning and logic)
• empiricism (systematic observations)

• 1. Confirmation Bias and the DIscounting Problem
• 2. The Limited Data Problem
• 3. The Expectations Problem
• 4. The Baserate/Comparison group problem
• 5. The Pleasant Truth Problem

limitation in comonsense psychology

we tend to try to seek out information that is consistent with our expectations/beliefs and we tend to discount information that is inconsistent with those expectations

limitation to commonsense psychology

our expectatiosn tend to influence the way we interpret events

• a limitation of commonsense psychology
• we tend to belive things that make us feel good (things that seem right)
• this could influnece the conclusions we make abotu beavior

a method that is more likely to lead to the right answer, and a process for understanding the world that enables to correct inevitable mistakes

process of constructing, testing, refining theories about natural phenomena through use of systematic and empirical observations

theory --> generate predictions --> empircal observations --> test the observations with the theory

• generative - generates new ways to think abotu the world
• makes predictions - risky ones
• can be tested (Falsifiable)
• are simple (parsimonious)

• have a theory - develop predictions based on theoreticcal principles
• design an experiment and take observations
• get data
• this data is consistent/inconsistent with the theory
• then we make a new or better theory

• more useful to test cases in which the theory is disproven rather than rpoven
• provides boundaries
• theories must be testable!!

• failures are rationalized or explained away
• reliance on anecdotes - personal experiences
• lack of tests
• lack of supporting evidence
• the 5 limitations of commonsense psychology!

• informally - an explanation of a behavior/event
• formaly - a prediction concerning the relationship between variabls (IF... then)

like theories they must be testable, falsifiable, parsimonious

• uninteresting studies - obvious outcomes
• unimportant research - who cares
• unnecessary research - why spend money on that?

• everyday life
• practical issues - try to solve a problem
• based off of past research (refine it, increase generality, better control)

• 1. state the hypothesis in gneral terms - the question/problem
• 2. operationalize the hypothesis - what are you measuring, what are you manipulating
• 3. what methods will be employed - how to test, look at the relationship
• 4. what results do you anticipate - how will they confirm/disconfirm your hypothesis?

• Theory - organized framework of principles that tries to explain some set of facts about the world - must be tested and evidence shown for it
• Hypothesis - a specific, testable prediction, related to a particular study, describes expectations abotu outcomes

• 26 Nazi physicians tried for research atrocities
• resulted int eh Nuremburg Code - first internationally recognize code of research ethics
• voluntary/informed consent
• favorable risk/benefit analysis
• right to withdraw without penalty

• same principles of Nuremburg code and
• interest of the subject is a higher priority than the interests of society (can't just do a study that will benefit the common good)
• every subject should get the best known treatment

• established the IRB - to regulate research on humans
• required IRB approval for most research studies
• defined the procedures an IRB must follow
• established criteria that an IRB must use to approve studies

• 3 basic ethical principles
• Respect For persons - individuals as autonomous agents
• Beneficence - protect persons from harm, maximize benefits
• Justice - benefits and risks must be distributed fairly

• 1st principle in Belmont Report
• decisions abotu participation must be voluntary
• people are able to exert their autonomy
• must give informed consent - understands/accepts their role as a subject
• explain teh purpose/procedure/risks/alternatives/ability to withdraw/duration
• privacy/confidentiality
• protecting those peopel who are not autonomous

• understanding and willingness to participate
• understanding of possible risks and benefits and knowing that one does nto have to volunteer

• Principle #2 of The belmont report
• must secure teh well being of the subject - protect from harm and make sure that they experience the possble benefits of involvement
• maximize possible benefits/minimize possible harms

• Principle #3 in Belmont Report
• justice is raised when we attempt to decide who will be given an opportunity to participate and who will be excluded

• its often times used but its not very nice
• you must make the case why deception is important to your study
• the reason for deception MUST outweight the possible risks - cannot affect their willingness to participate
• requires debriefing! - deception must be explained

• an IACUC - institutional animal care and use committee (like an IRB - but for animals)
• same kinds of ehtical standards as for human - there are protectiosn for animals!

• to communicate research findings
• enable critical evaluation
• enable replication and extension

• objective
• concise and precise (doesn't mean dull)
• unbiased

• adds to scientific knowledge (related to old, rpovides new)
• conveys information clearly and consisely

• clairty of presentation
• ease of evaluation
• readers know what to expect

• the reserach questions - general terms - why important
• review of previous work
• overview of current work - hypothesis, design/variables of interest

• summary of patterns
• what the results mean
• how do the results relate to initial hypotheses
• implications/take home message

• an inference based on a theory of behavior
• sometimes we can't observe directly teh things we want to study (like amount of motivation)
• requires operationalization

• translating abstract concepts into concrete variabels that can be mainpulated and/or observed
• decision about translation so that you can take the abstract concept and transfer it into a concrete observation of behavior

• reliability - consistency or dependability of measurement (compare occasion to occasion and measured via correlations)
• validity - whether hte measure actually related to expected behavior

• face validity
• content validity
• criterion validity
• construct validity

it appears on the surface to measure what is intended (weakest)

• accurately predicts behavior
• predictive - predicts future performance like SAT
• concurrent - predicts present performance (driving tests)

• measures the intended construct in a theoretically-motivated way - like the IQ test
• is what you are measuring really related to what you want to measure in terms of your construct?

anything else that may influence the outcomes

when the effects of the extraneous variables are systematic (influence certain conditions/measures more than others) they are very hazardous to experimental validity

other factors systematically vary along with teh variables of interest

• history - influnced by a past event?
• maturation - internal changes?
• testing - effects of test they've seen before
• instrumentation - changes in how its collected?
• regression - groups preselected to represent extremes?
• selection - lack of random assignment?
• attrition (mortality) - did subjects drop out or otherwise disappear?

true experiments require that the researcher have contorl over as many aspects as possible - get rid of extraneous variables (so validity is not htreatened)

• physical
• social - demand characteristics, experimenter bias
• personality of the particpants and the experimenters

an effect in the direction expected but not for the reason expected

• behavior is shaped by expectations abotu how they should behave (cues from the situation or attempts to guess the hypothesis)
• use single blind studies, or use cover stories (deception)

• a way to control demand characteristics
• participants aren't told which conditino theya re in

• cues from teh experimenter abotu hwo the subject should respond
• self-fulfilling prophecies (teh Rsenthal effect with the good vs. bad students)

• double-blind studies
• standardized coding or something

• eliminate self-selection bias
• make it likely that the differences between teh groups wash out

• important for the samples to be random
• equal chance of being assigned to either of the groups

• the effect of a single IV on a DV
• if A changes, it will affect B

• how effect of one IV changes across levels of another IV
• the impact of one IV on the DV changes across levels of the other IV

• test/retest reliability
• alternate-forms reliability
• split-half reliability
• interrater reliability

uncontrolled extraneous variables, or flaws in an experiment