Experimental Psychology

INTRODUCTION
Psychology science of behavior
Scientific approach to understand behavior
Knowledge on psych processes based on
scientific evidence (gotten through research)

Specified conditions make our observations

(in a systematic way)

Accept/reject explanation based on observation

Psychl science research on psych proc.

Underlying behavior

Scientia knowledge

Knowledge
o Content what we know, facts
o Process systematic ways of gathering,
noting
relationships,
offering
explanation

Methodology scientific techniques used to

collect and evaluate

Data facts and figures gathered

The Need for Scientific Method

All areas of psych rely on sci. research methods

We collect psych data to understand behavior

of others and to guide our own

commonsense psychology aka nonscientific

psychology data gathered from our own
experiences; info about behavior from own
observations,interactions

Confirmation bias overlook instances where

belief is threatened, seek confirmatory
instances instead

More likely to believe info coming from certain

kinds of people

We are unaware of factors that influence

attitudes, behaviors

Inferential strategies too simple to be

accurate

Nonscientific Inference
o First data we collect about others:
traits/first impressions
o ^Bias to overlook situational data in
favor of data that substantiate our trait
claims
o Generally more accurate when we
know someone well
o Traits useful predicting behavior long
run
o Situations predictor: momentary
behavior
o Overconfidence bias predictions seem
more correct than actually are, we
have more data (accurate or not), more
confidence
Characteristics of Modern Science

Behavior must follow a natural ordercan be

predicted

Determinism specifiable causes for the way

people behave (can be discovered through
research)

Gathering empirical data

o Empirical
data

data
observable/experienced
o ^ can be verified or disproved
(investigation)

CH. 1:

Seeking general principles

o Principles have to generally apply to all
situations laws
o Interim explanation theories (< pull
together/unify diverse sets of sci. facts
into an organizing scheme)
o Old theories < new theories with
greater explanatory power
o Psych progresses by developing
better theories
o Theories guide course of future
observations what we observe
determined by what theories suggest
to be observed

Good Thinking
o Central feature of sci. method
o Systematic, objective, rational approach to
collection and interpretation of data
o being open to new ideas even when they
contradict our beliefs
o Principle
of
parsimony

simplest
explanation
is
preferred;
simplicity,
precision, clarity of thought

Self-Correction
o Content of science changes with new sci.
info.
o Changes important for sci. progress
o More evidence supporting theory, more
confidence theory is correct

Publicizing results
o Continuous exchange of info vital to
sci. process

Replication
o Repeat our procedures, get same
results (others should as well)
Objectives of Psych. Science

Objectives: description, prediction, explanation,

control

Description
o Initial step
o Systematic & unbiased account of
observed characteristics of behaviors
o Good
descriptions

greater
knowledge of behaviors
o Info about what behavior will be like

Prediction
o Capacity for knowing in advance
certain bh. expected to occur
o Correlational, quasi-experimental used
to predict behavior

Explanation
o Explained
behavior,
understanding
what causes it to occur
o Includes knowledge of conditions that
reliable reproduce occurrence of bh.
o To explain, experimental
research
design in which we systematically
manipulate aspects of the setting
o Control other factors that might
influence bh

Control
o Application of what has been learned
about the bh

Applied research designed to solve real-world

problems

Basic research explain psych phenomena in

humans/animals
Scientific Method: Tools of Psych Science

Gather info objectively and systematically,

base concl. on evidence we obtain

Observation
o Systematic noting and recording of
events
o Only observable events can be studied
scientifically
o Thinking, feeling as long as we
develop observable signs
o Ex. moods cannot be observed
reliably; typically questionnaires
o System for observing should be
applied the same way every time

Measurement
o Assignment of numerical values to
objects or events etc. according to
conventional rules
o Standardized units (conventions)
o Standards determined by context of
study
o Measurement must be consistent
across each set of conditions same
instruments and procedures
o Use of stat to evaluate findings

Experimentation
o Process undertaken to test hypothesis
(behavior will occur reliably under
certain, specifiable conditions)
o Predictions must be testable
o Minimum requirements:

Procedures for manipulating

setting

Predicted outcome observable

Able to measure outcome

o Experimentation must be objective
Sci. Explanation in Psych. Science

Identifying Antecedent Conditions

o Explanation specifying antecedent
cond.
o *Antecedent cond circumstance that
come before event/behavior

Comparing treatment conditions

o Focus on particular antecedents
o Treatments specific sets of ant. cond.
o Then measure behavior to ascertain
whether different treatments produce
predictably different outcomes

The Psychology Experiment

o Controlled procedure, at least two
different treatments applied to subjects
o Compare
behavior
under
varied
conditions
o Random assignment of subjects to
balance out systematic difference
between subjects (cornerstones of
most experimentation)
o Between-subjects design subj. receive
one treatment only
o Systematic diff. could be ruled out by
subjecting
each
one
to
each

cond./treatment
(within-subjects
design)
o Usually new problems with ^

Effect of one treatment carries

over to next treatment
o Successful exp relies on control
o All other explanations (except the ones
tested) should be ruled out
o Greatest degree of control
o ^ shield subjects from factors that
could influence behavior
o Critics: lab sit. may be artificial,
unrealistic
o Control achieved by:

Random assignment

Presenting
treatment
identically

Keep environment, procedure,

instruments constant

Establishing cause and effect

o Infering cause and effect relationship
(greatest value of psych exps) bet. ant.
cond. and subj. bh.
o Temporal relationship established
through experiment; time difference
occurs in rel.
(antecedent before behavior, cause
precedes effect)
o Spatial relationship not always correct
o Logical relationship
o Advantage of exp: we can control
factors other than those we are testing

Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions

o Ex. Losing weight

Sufficient cutting down carbs

(not necessary since there are
other means)
o Ex. snowmobile

Necessary fuel (mobile cant

run without fuel)
From Pseudoscience to Psych. Science

Wilhelm
Wundt

first
experimental
psychologist

^Studied human sensory experience

Early psych under mental philosophy

*reporting own thoughts and experiences:

phenomenology

Pseudoscience pseudo:false (any field that

gives appearance of being scientific but has no
true scientific basis or not using scientific
method
Organization of Text

I. Introduction overall orientation to field of

research methods

II. Method all basic procedures used in

experiment, selecting subjects, collecting data

III. Results: Coping with Data common stat

procedures used to analyze data

IV. Discussion major issues involved in

drawing concl. from data + communicating
findings
CH. 2: Research Ethics

Foremost concern in recruiting

subject - treating them ethically

and

using

Consider safety and welfare

Responsible
research

advancing
understanding of feelings, thoughts that will
benefit humanity
*Institutional Review Board (IRB) evaluate
proposed studies before being conducted
o Journals require researches to be
approved by IRB first
o Primary duty ensure safety of
research
participants,
adequately
protected
o At risk subject more likely to be
harmed in some way
o IRB must determine if risks are
outweighed by potential benefits,
knowledge

Risk/benefit analysis
o Should have members that are skilled
in research mehods
Poorly designed research can lead to
unwarranted and inaccurate conclusions
Informed consent nature of the study,
procedure etc.
o Part. should give consent freely
o Free to drop out of experiment
o Full explanation of procedures, offer to
answer questions
o How long it will take
o Make clear potential risks and benefits
possibility of injury should be
explained too
o Provide assurance data will remain
private and confidential
o *No need to reveal true hypothesis
(exp.
expectation
exposedmight
influence behavior)
o Should be obtained in writing, with
participants copy
o Minor consent from guardian/parent
(though they could still refuse to
participate)
o ^Also applies for the cognitively
impaired
Evolution of Ethics in research
o Came to forefront after discoveries of
brutal experiments on Jews (conc.
camp)
o National Commission for Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research
o Belmont report three basic ethical
principles

Respect for persons human

beings as autonomous with
right to make decisions; extra
protections
for
vulnerable
populations,
diminished
capacity

Beneficence - minimize risk of

harm,
maximize
possible
benefits to them; responsibility
of researchers to estimate
potential risks truthfully and
accurately

Justice fairness in both

burdens and benefits (ex.

research in hospital ward

patients, benefitted wealthy);
eye toward fairness, people
arent selected just because
they are disadvantaged, readily
available, easily manipulated;
subjects from groups who will
reap benefits
American Psych. Association Guidelines
o Published own set of ethical standards
o Researchers required to stipulate
ethical standards were followed
Questions on ethics of expt seek advice from
IRB or colleagues; employ all possible
safeguards
Minimal risk no greater in probability and
severity than risks in ordinary life
o Research does not alter these odds of
being harmed
o If min. risk, informed consent not very
mandatory
Informed consent in ALL researches using
human subjs.
Commitments:
o Promise to pay subjects
o Give them (course) credit
o Maintain confidentiality
o Share results of study with them
Deception and Full Disclosure
o Though should be as open and honest
as possible, true purpose of study is
sometimes disguised
o Use of confederates
o Most
subjects
not
bothered
by
deception, research professionals are

They do not perceive they are

being harmed, dont mind
being misled
o Deception expts more enjoyable, more
beneficial
o Consensus: use of deception justified
by knowledge gained
o Some psych problems cannot be
studied without deception??
o Small omission, or outright deception
necessary
o Debriefing at end of expt: true nature,
purpose of study
o Experimental effects cant always be
reversed avoid using potentially
harmful procedures
o ^debriefing not enough to reverse
effects
Anonymity and Confidentiality
o To protect privacy
o Data should be collected anonymously
(code nos., fictitious names)

Protecting Welfare of Animals

Humane care and treatment of animals

Put species-typical activities

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee

(IACUC)
Fraud in Science

Reporting on research necessary part of

process done honestly and accurately

Researchers
publishing
false
data
Psychologists do not fabricate data
Research articles reviewed by editor of journal
+ several experts peer review
o Assess merit of a submission
o Something strange about findings, will
be discovered
o Make recommendations to editor
o First line of defense
Replication
o Second line of defense
o Especially if results surprising, novel or
important
Competitive nature of academic psych
o Tenure and promotion
o Publish or perish
o Works against fraud but also could be
the major cause
Sir Cyril Burt
o Major fraud!
o Inheritability of IQ
Data falsification can have important real-world
implications
National Science Foundation
o Misconduct: fabrication, falsification,
plagiarism
o Plagiarism

More common kind of fraud

To represent someone elses

ideas, words, or written work as
your own

Using someone elses ideas

without giving proper credit

Paraphrasing without credit

*Tips to avoid plagiarism p. 66

Ethical reports
o Ethical Principles of Psychologists and
Code of Conduct gives further
guidance on ethics and research
reports
o Researchers do not take credit for the
same research
o Ethical: republish parts of previously
published reports (even entire ones)
o Initial publication properly credited

CH.
3:
ALTERNATIVES
NONEXP.DES.

TO

EXPERIMENTATION:

Nonexperimental approaches experiment not

practical or desirable

^Used when testing hypothesis in existing real

life situation is necessary or important

Recall:
o Primary purpose of exp: establish
causal relationship between treatments
(antecendent, specific) and observed
behavior

Internal validity degree to which research

design allows us to make causal statements

External validity generalizability/applicability

to the outside research setting

Nonexperimental designs: greater external

validity, lost in internal validity
Describing Research Activities

Two major dimensions of approaches to

research:
o Degree
of
manipulation
of
antecedent conditions

Vary from low to high

(letting
things
happen
freely to careful control of
experimental conditions)
o Degree of imposition of units

The extent to which the

researcher
constrains,
limits the responses a
subject may contribute to
the data
o Most experiments: high imposition
of units
o Nonexperimental: low to high
imposition of units
Five common nonexperimental approaches:
o Phenomenology

Individuals
immediate
experience

Personal experience as a
source of data

Antecedents
not
manipulated

Data may consist of any

immediate experience; no
constraints imposed

Comparison of behaviors
under different treatment
cond. not required

Conclusions
are
instantaneous

No use of statistics (freq.

does not occur at an
instant and cannot be
immediately observed)

Cant be sure if observed

process is not altered in
some way by our attention

^not be able to achieve

accuracy and objectivity

Difficult
to
replicate
experiences,
apply
scientific criteria

Cannot
be
used
to
understand
causes
of
behavior

Only describes, not explain

Seldom used as research

method

Frequent
component of
qualitative research

Makes extensive use of

self-reports
o Case Studies

No
manipulation
of
antecedent conditions

Descriptive record of a
single
individuals
experiences (kept by an
outside observer)

^Patient
or
other
knowledgeable
source
provides information on

events in patients life,

reactions and behaviors
Low-low (manip-imposition)
Some though might restrict
information collected (lowhigh)
Source
of
inferences,
hypotheses, theories
Source
of
developing
therapy techniques
Study of rare phenomena
Provide
exceptions
to
accepted ideas, theories,
practices
Persuasive
and
motivational value
Make
inferences
about
impact of life events, origin
of disorders, developmental
processes
If changes occurred in ind.
adjustment
following
^
events
Understanding
psychodynamics
of
experience
(Ex. death of a parent,
sibling etc. if associated
with depression later in life)
We could devise more
appropriate
treatment
techniques,
preventive
measures
^Evaluate techniques of
psychotherapy
for
depression
Dramatic way to illustrate
abstract concepts Seeing
can be believing
Compelling can excite
interest and bring about
new research
Used in clinical work to
evaluate overall level of
psych. fxning
*Deviant case analysis

Deviant and normal

ind. Compared for
sig. difference

^Difference
have
impt. implications
for etiology, origin,
psychopathology
We cant be sure if could be
applied
to
general
population
If not observed all the time,
not sure if aware of all
relevant
aspects
of
persons life
Neglect to mention all impt
info
Retrospective
data

recollections
of
past
events,
accuracy
not

guaranteed
(altered,
reconstructed)

Positive events = good

mood

Negative events = bad

mood

We cannot make cause and

effect statements

^only
a
relationship
between two occurences
Field Studies

Field/real life settings

Combine various types of

data gathering

Ant. cond. not manipulated

Degree
of
constraint
varying
Naturalistic
Observation
Studies
o Observing
as
events
occur
spontaneously
o Descriptive
o No manip
o Low-low
o Animal behavior
o Try
to
remain
inconspicuous
o Behaviors
should
not be altered by
presence
of
observer
o Vast
array
of
responses
(which
one to observe?)
o Essential,
preferable
to
experiments
in
some cases
o Designed to answer
specific questions
o INTERSECT
=
Special
coding
system
(allow
observations to be
quantified, permit
stat analyses)
o ^Systematic
observation limit
type of responses
recorded (low-high)
o Lab
findings
vs
natural settings
o ^Some behaviors
may be distorted in
lab setting, best
studied in natural
o Behaviors different
when
watching
known
o Reactivity

tendency to alter
behavior
when
aware of observers
presence
o ^Confirm
or
sabotage

Unobtrusive
measures

behavioral
indicators
Participant observer study
o Researcher
becomes part of
group studied
o ^when
mems
might
not
cooperate
o Sometimes
they
are not told
o Usually does not
include systematic
obs.
o Qualitative data
o Difficult to remain
objective
and
unbiased
o ^when friendships
form
o Privacy?
o Public place where
privacy
not
expected ethical
o Disclose
status
when in a private
place (IRB)
o Great potential for
reactivity
o No contaminating
laboratory setting
effects
Archival Studies
o Descriptive
research
o Already
existing
records reexamined
for new purpose
o Data from govt,
agencies
o Causal inferences
cannot
be
supported
o ^Valuable info tho
Qualitative research

Relies on words rather than

nos.

Self-reports,
personal
narratives, expression of
ideas

No
understanding
of
qualitative methods not
really appreciate breadth of
r. methodology used by
contemporary
psy.
Scientists

Paradigm

attitudes,
values, beliefs, methods
generally accepted in a
discipline

^hypothesis
testing,
experimentation,
quanti.
data

To
study
contextual
phenomena
o

Need for context

Contemporary
phenomenology
=
empirical phenom.
o Self-reflection
on
experiences
relevant
to
phenom. Of interest
o Participants
oral
written descriptions
of experiences
o Accounts
of
phenom.
o Relies on actual
words
o Validate concl. by
participants
verifying,
offer
corrections
Validity of inferences from quali.
res?

Interpretation might be
influenced by researchers
own viewpoint (potential
bias)

Accuracy of self-reports,
retrospective data

No control for potential bias

Mistakes, erroneous concl.

May be greater

Internal, external validity as

issues

Qualitative
data
=
reproducibility
of
conclusions?

Goodness of qualitative
data = replicability

CH. 4: SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS:

Survey research to obtain information

about opinions, preferences, behaviors etc.
simply by asking

Allow us to gather data about experiences

hard to observe directly

Data on sensitive topics

Do not allow us to test hypotheses about

causal relationships

Allow us to gather large amounts of data

efficiently

Small no. of response vs. answer as they

wish

Written questionnaires, face to face

interviews

As part of a focus group

Generalizability: procedures used to select

subjs,
Constructing Surveys

No understanding of the impt components of

survey construction: no meaningful info at all

Questions should be really asking what is

intended

Designing survey items:

o How to address imposition of units
o Closed questions (limited alternatives)
vs. open questions (opinions and
feelings)

^Open qs can expand, clarify

Closed questions easier to quantify
Content analysis: similar to coding
behaviors
using
systematic
observational techniques
o Skill in construction of questions
o Keep items simple, keep people
involved
o Avoid ambiguous & incomprehensible
qs
o ^Double barreled/compound responses
about two different ideas in the same
question
o Response choices should be exhaustive
o Open ended questions: simply worded
o Levels of measurement:

Nominal scale

Classifies response in
categories

Does not quantify items

in any way

Lowest
level
of
measurement

No info on magnitude

^nor
differences
in
magnitude

Ordinal scale

Rank ordering of a
response

Magnitude measured in
the form of ranks

Still cannot measure

magnitude

Interval scale

Magnitude
of
quantitative size with
equal
intervals
between values

No zero point

Ex.
Fahrenheit
and
centigrade (no true 0,
the true absence of any
measurable temp)

Ratio scale

Equal
intervals
between values

Has true zero point

o Lower to higher levels of measurement
more precise information about
magnitude
Selecting Levels of Measurement
o Possible to measure with more than
one scale
o Best type of scale?

Nature of variable

How much precision desired

o Psychological variables continuous
dimension
(traits,
attitudes,
preferences)
o (Ex. very unsociable to very sociable;
attitudes: strongly negative to strongly
positive; preference: weak to strong
etc.)
o Choose highest level possible to
provide more info
o
o
o

Important Considerations for Survey Items

Get subjects involved right away w/ interesting

qs
o Relevant to topic
o Easy to answer
o Interesting
o Answerable by most
o Closed format (first few questions)

Subjects dont have to think too much

Unanswerable by I dont know

Private information? Dont include if not

necessary

Care and sensitivity

o Avoid
value
laden
questions
(positive/negative
response
seem
embarrassing)

Response styles
o Subj. personal characteristics affect
answer
o Willingness, preferences, yea-saying
and nay-saying
o Willingness
to
answer:
questions
require specific knowledge
o ^no right or wrong
o Position preferences: doubt, answer c
etc.
o The way of answering could tell a lot
about u
o Manifest content - plain meaning of
words that appear
o Yea-sayers agree with questions
regardless of ^
o Nay-sayers disagree no matter what
o Pretest questions before data collection
o Get volunteers, go over each question
o Context effects

Question order can influence

how question is interpreted

Use
buffer
questions
to
separate related questions
Collecting Survey Data

Self-administered questionnaires
o Consider possibility of reactivity
o Collect data anonnymously

Mail surveys
o Questionnaire and return procedures
protect anonymity
o Keep track of people who do not return;
report
o Keep as short as possible
o Those who returned not same as those
who did not

Computer, internet
o As long as theres privacy
o Less concern with social desirability
o No experimenter present, reduce
coercion
o More diverse sample
o Cannot see subjects
o Multiple times answering

Telephone surveys
o Listed no. different from unlisted
o Interviewers to establish rapport,
maintain interview style
o Keep simple

Social desirability
Unusual: open ended questions
Males:
more
authoritative
and
persistent
Interviews
o For high quality survey data
o Most expensive
o Different in questions (open-ended)
o Establish rapport, avoid judgmental
statement, know how to keep interview
flowing
o Confidence, trust
o Subtle changes can influence subject
o Structured vs. unstructured
o Interviews appearance
o Interview should match respondent
Focus Groups
o Small groups of people with similar
charac.
o Facilitator, guides group in discussion
o ^should be skilled for useful data
o
o
o

Evaluating Surveys and Survey Data

Reliability
o Extent to which survey is consistent
and repeatable
o Responses similar questions consistent
o Different
survey
givers:
similar
responses
o Same person multiple tests same
response

Validity
o Extent to which survey actually
measures intended topic

Though unlikely to evaluate survey ^

Use standardized tests (reliability and validity

tested)
SAMPLING

Who subjects will be and selecting them

Population consists of all members of

group/at least one characteristic in common

Sample subset of the population of interest

Data collected from sample can be used to

draw inferences about pop without examining
everyone

How accurately we can generalize our findings

depends on representativeness

Representativeness how closely the sample

mirrors
larger
population;
how
closely
responses we observe and measure reflect
those we would obtain if we could sample the
entire population

External validity how well our sample

represents the larger population
Probability Sampling

Probability study of likelihood of events

Probability sampling odds of each mem of a

pop. in the study are known/can be calculated

Must use unbiased method for selecting

subjects

Random selection any mem has equal chance

of being chosen

Simple Random Sampling

o Most basic

Portion
of
whole
pop
selected
unbiasedly
o *Random selection does not guarantee
sample being truly representative of
entire pop
o List down all members then random
(1ina100)

Systematic Random Sampling

o All
members
known
and
listed
unbiasedly
o Select every nth person (where n is
determined by size of pop and desire
sample size)

Stratified Random Sampling

o Population known to have distinct
subgroups
o Sampling from people in each subgroup
o Portions should also reflect actual pop
(ex. Pop: 90% staff, 10% managers
100 sample size should consist of 90
staff, 10 managers)
o For ethnic differences
o Advantages:

Subsets
are
sampled
separately so impt minorities
are represented in total

Diff. procedures can be used

for each subgroup to maximize
usefulness of data

*when these groups will be

likely to respond differently

Cluster Sampling
o Population too large to randomly select
one by one
o Entire
clusters/naturally
occurring
groups
o Whole groups selected rather than
individuals
o Ex. zip code areas, school districts,
cities, countries etc.
o Main advantage: can sample data
efficiently from relatively few locations
o Potential disadvantage: subjects within
clusters may resemble one another
o Desirable to sample many clusters,
large sample as possibly

Probability sampling more preferred, increases

external validity

Probability samples more representative of

pop, research concl. greater generalizability
NONPROBABILITY SAMPLING

Subjects are not chosen at random

Random selection cornerstone of good survey

research

Quota Sampling
o Predetermined quotas intended to
reflect makeup of population
o No constraints on selection as long as
quota is filled
o Resulting sample might not be good
representation
o Quota sampling lacks rigor
o Low external validity

Convenience Sampling
o Any groups who happen to be available
o Weak form of sampling
o

No control over representativeness

Accidental sampling
Done more often, less expensive,
usually faster
o Be cautious in conclusions drawn from
data
o Greatly limit external validity
o Qualities that distinguish groups
atypical research findings
o Not valid to generalize beyond group
studied
Purposive Sampling
o Individuals reflect a specific purpose
o Be careful with generalizing to any
other mems of the pop
Snowball sampling
o Locate few people who fit sample, ask
these people to lead them to additional
subjects
o Used for very small, uncommon, unique
pop
o Or
researchers
dont
know
the
members or how to contact them
o May not be representative (ex. activist
classmate, other activists may or may
not be as educated etc.)
Reporting samples
o How sample is chosen influences what
can be concluded from results
o Explain type of sample used and how
subjects were recruited
o ^so results can be interpreted properly
o Results from convenience sample
might not be generalizable
o Tell reader exactly how sample was
obtained

Identify specific population

Exact description where and

how

Include gender, age, other

impt.
demographic
characteristics

Any details that might have

influenced type of subject
participating
need
to
be
reported
o Participants drawn from very small
sample
o Some participants selected are not
included in report: dropped out, data
discarded etc.
o Critical: details of your sample
o Details
give
reader
necessary
information to eval generalizability of
results or to compare to other studies
o Deets also necessary for replication
Correlational and Quasi-Experimental Designs
Used
to
establish
relationship
among
preexisting behaviors
Can be used to predict one set of behaviors
from others
No manipulation or control by researcher
Quasi seeming like lack essential elements
of true experiment: manip of antecedents,
random assignment etc.
o
o
o

CH. 5:

Compare behavioral differences associated

with different types of subjects

Naturally occurring situations

Treatments selected life events, preexisting

characteristics

Might never fully explain behavioral disorders

quasi can increase our understanding (envi,
bio,
cognitive,
genetic,
symptoms
manifestations etc.)

Quasi more systematic control over situation

Quasi whenever subj cannot be assigned at

random to diff. experimental manipulations

Quasi unless other antecedents controlled,

low in. va.

Internal validity ability to establish causal

rel.ship.

Quasi can explore consistent differences

between existing groups of people

^Tend to be higher in external validity

Correlation low in manip

Correlational Designs

Correlation
o Degree of relationship
o If correlated, changes in one, changes
in another
o Selected traits or behaviors measured
first
o Low-high
o Better prediction of persons score on
another measure highly related to it
o Higher correlation, more accurate
prediction
o Simple correlation between pairs of
scores
o Scatterplots visual representations of
scores of each subject; first step in
analyzing
o Regression lines lines of best fit
(direction of line = direction of
relationship)
o Positive correlation direct relationship
o Negative
correlation

inverse
relationship
o Direction of relationship one of the
most difficult concepts to grasp
o Sign tells direct/inverse, absolute value
how strong it is
o Bigger absolute value, more accurate
o Nonlinear trend could be curvilinear
o Range truncation artificial restriction
of the range values of X and Y
(restriction can make trend weak)
o Outliers extreme scores

Useful and relatively easy to conduct

Topics that cannot be investigated using

experimental approaches

Correlation does not imply causation

When behaviors could affect each other

bidirectional causation (a problem)

Third agent could be causing to behaviors to

appear related third variable problem

Coefficient of determination (r2, Pearsons r)

o Estimates amount of variability in
scores on on variable that can be

explained by the other; estimate

strength of relationship

Linear regression analysis

o Behaviors strongly related, estimate
score on one of the measured
behaviors from a score on the other
linear regression
o Stronger correlation, better prediction
o Regression equation formula of a
straight line that best describes the
relationship between two variables

Multiple Correlation and Multiple Regression

o Behavior can be predicted by a number
of other measured behaviors
o Multiple correlation R
o Partial correlation stat influence of
one measured variable to be held at
constant while computing the corr.
between the other two
o More than two related behaviors
correlate

multiple
regression
analysis
o Regression equation determines weight
of each predictor
o Path
analysis
possible causal
sequences of related behaviors
Causal Modeling

Path Analysis
o When subjects are measured on
several related behaviors
o Creates models of possible causal
sequences
o Another
descriptive
method
but
generates impt info for prediction,
generate experimental hypotheses
o Model can only be constructed using
the
behaviors
that
have
been
measured
o Goodness of it
o Ex. empathy manipulation affects level
of empathy, affect attitude toward drug
addicts, produced helping behavior
o Internal validity low (based on corr.
data)
o Cause and effect cannot be established
with certainty
o Third variables can never be ruled out
completely
o Useful for generating hypotheses for
future
research,
potential
causal
sequences
in
instances
where
experimentation not feasible

Cross-Lagged Panel Design

o Relationships measured over time
suggest causal path
o Look for largest diagonal correlation to
indicate causal direction
o Many new ideas, new questions
o Suggest possible direction of a cause
and effect relationship
o Bidirectional causation & third variable
problem

Recap:
o Correlation degree of relationship
o Multiple Correlation - ^between three
or more variables

Linear regression analysis regression

equation to predict scores on one
variable from scores on second variable
o Multiple regression - ^from scores on
sets of other variables
o Factor analysis determines subsets of
correlated variables
o Path analysis use beta weights from
MRA to generate possible direction of
cause and effect
o Cross-lagged panel same pair of
variables at two different points in
time; patterns of correlation across
time for possible direction of cause and
effect
Quasi-experimental design

No manipulation of antecedent

No random assignment

Effects of different treatments to preexisting

groups

Changes over time in different groups of

subjects

Naturally occurring event natural experiment

Quasi-treatment groups based on the particular

event, characteristic, or behavior whose
influence we want to investigate

We can never know for certain what causes

behavior

Low in internal validity

No control over who receives which treatment

Ex Post Facto Studies

o Systematically examines effect of
subject characteristics (or subject
variable) w/o manipulation
o Treatment grps formed by selecting
subjects on the basis of differences
that already exist
o After the fact
o Low-high
o Age and gender common
o Special advantages: deals with things
as they occur
o Focus on occurrences in systematic
way
o Same rigorous control procedures
(prediction in advance, test objectively)
o Systematically forming groups based
on difference important feature
o Can be easily misinterpreted
o Third variable
o Low in internal validity
o Other differences true cause of effects
o Enables us to explore many dimensions
that we could not or would not choose
to study
o Info provided help us understand kinds
of complex behavior in real life
o Studies provide more realistic data that
can be applied in practical ways

Nonequivalent Groups Design

o Compares effects of different treatment
conditions on preexisting groups of
participants
o Measure subjects on any attributes that
strongly threaten internal validity
o

CH. 6:

Longitudinal design
o Same subjects at different points in
time, look to see how things have
changed
o Influence of time on behaviors
o Same sample must be tracked for a
long time
Cross-sectional Studies
o Subjects already at different stages
compared at a single point in time
o Stat tests to analyze effects less
powerful than within subjects group
o Runs risk of people in groups might
differ in other characteristics
o Neither ^ can be used to infer cause
and effect
o Antecedents not manipulated
o Imposition of units high
Pretest/Posttest design
o Assess effects of naturally occurring
events (approval ratings before and
after presidential speech as example)
o If studies beyond single brief research
session, too many other things that
could influence
o Used to test effects of foreseeable realworld events
o Can be extremely low in internal
validity
o This much flexibility, ought to use
experimental instead
Quasi lack artificiality of experiments; used as
sources
Recap:
o Quasi differences in preexisting
groups of subjects, group diff in some
variables or different treatments to
preexisting groups
o Ex
post
facto

characteristics
(naturally occurring) of preexisting
groups of subjects
o Nonequivalent compares effects of
diff.
treatment
conditions
on
preexisting grps
o Longitudinal changes across time by
measuring behavior of same subjects
(diff points in time)
o Cross-sectional changes across time;
subjects at already different stages
o Pretest/posttest

effects
of
event/treatment
by
comparing
behavior before and after
Formulating the Hypothesis
Most psychological research is designed to test
hypothesis
Approaches to arriving: induction, deduction,
building on prior research, serendipity and
intuition
The end of the long process of thinking of a
topic
Is the thesis/main idea of the experiment
Statement on predicted relationship between
at least two variables
Speculation, guess, hunch
Nonexperimental hypothesis how events,
traits, behaviors might be related (not cause

and effect), straightforward predictions of

relationship

True experiment: effects of specific ant. cond.

on some behavior

Phenomenology, case studies, naturalistic

observation etc. primarily intended to explore
and describe behaviors as they occur naturally

Correlational, quasi, hypo about predicted

relationships between variables
Characteristic of an Experimental Hypothesis

Complicated exp des several treatments,

various hypothesis

Each exp. hypo tentative explanation of an

event or behavior

Explains effect of specified antecedent

condition on a measured behavior

Factors: narrow down possibilities

Should meet certain basic criteria

Should be synthetic statements, are testable,

falsifiable, parsimonious, and fruitful

Synthetic Statements
o Can either be true or false (some
chance it is true, some chance false)
o Can be supported/contradicted
o Nonsynthetic

Analytic statement always

true (ex. I am pregnant or I am
not pregnant)

Contradictory with elements

that oppose each other (ex. I
have a brother and I do not
have a brother)

^We already know what the

outcome will be
o Evaluate the form If.. then expresses
potential relationship

Testable Statements
o The means for manipulating the
antecedent
and
measuring
the
resulting behavior must exist
o Elaborate space travel, dreaming in
dogs etc. untestable (for now)
o Untestable
hypo
not
necessarily
useless

Falsifiable Statements
o Disprovable by research findings
o Need to be worded so failures to find
predicted effect can be evidence that
hypo is false

Parsimonious statements
o Simplest explanation is preferred
o Simple over one that requires many
supporting assumptions

Fruitful statements
o Could generate new research, leads to
new studies
o Fruitful when we could think of new
studies if hypo is supported
The Inductive Model

Process of reasoning from specific cases to

general principles

Individual instances overall explanatory

scheme to describe them

Usual approach

Observe several specific instances of behavior,

use these to form a general principle

Basic tool of theory building

*theory set of general principles used to

explain and predict behavior

Researchers construct theories by taking bits of

empirical data and forming general explanatory
schemes
The Deductive Model

Reasoning from general principles to make

predictions about specific instances

Most useful when we have a well-developed

theory with clearly stated basic premises
Combining Induction and Deduction

Induction: we devise general principles and

theories to organize, explain, predict behavior
(until more satisfactory principles are found)

Deduction: we vigorously test implications of

these theories
Building on Prior Research

Most useful way of finding hypothesis: working

from research that has already been done

*ex post facto

Systematic manip of antecedent permits us to

make cause and effect inferences that cannot
be made through nonexperiments

Points that other researchers have missed, or

new applications

Trigger new ideas for new applications of the

theory

Reviewing literature is still a necessary

component of report writing
Serendipity and the Windfall Hypothesis

All others, purposeful

The knack of finding things that are not being

sought

Ivan Pavlov Classical Conditioning

Can be useful in making new hypo only when

we are open to new possibilities

Take
note
of
all
potentially
relevant
observations

Not just a matter of luck; matter of knowing

enough to use an opportunity
Intuition

Using intuition not necessarily unscientific,

inferences drawn from intuition can sometimes
violate scientific criteria

Knowing without reasoning

Probably closest to phenomenology

We have a hunch about what might happen, so

we set up experiment to test it

Intuition guides what we choose to study

Intuition most accurate if coming from experts

Good hunches = unconscious result of own

expertise

The more we know about a topic, the better our

intuitive hypotheses

May have tentative BUT TRULY TENTATIVE

explanation, cannot be accepted as valid until
translated into hypothesis and subjected to
empirical test

Observable data > intuition

If All Else Fails

Do a bit of reading to derive a hypothesis

Try observation causal attributions

Real world problem

Feasible to test hypo

Searching the Research Literature

Become familiar with other published studies

w/ same topic

Literature search necessary for writing

research report psych journals

Thorough research: work similar to yours (good

procedures, tips for measuring etc.)

Meta-analysis statistical reviewing procedure

that uses data from many similar studies to
summarize research findings

^quantifies past findings how strong cause

and effect relationship between ac and mb

Published journal articles + scholarly books

most of your sources

Writing the Report

o Introduction review of relevant,
recent research (directly related to
research hypothesis)
o Discussion integrate experiment into
existing knowledge, how it advances,
increase generalizability, contradict
past findings etc.
o If findings are inconsistent with past
results by others, explain that here as
well by contrasting your own study

Finding the Articles You Need

o Many library and web-based aids can
help you find journal articles
o Primary source for psychologists:
PsychINFO
o Select abstracts that seem most
relevant
CH. 7: THE BASICS OF EXPERIMENTATION

Hypothesis procedure to test it

Experimental most of the research in psych

Properly conducted experiment allows us to

draw causal inferences about behavior

Well conducted high in internal validity

Manipulate ant. cond. to create different

treatment conditions

At least two treatments

Record responses or behaviors of subjects

under various conditions

Experiment allows us to make cause and effect

statements

Causal inferences justified only when carefully

controlled test of predictions has been made

Basic
components:
IV,
DV,
operational
definitions, control

Involved in evaluating definitions: reliability,

validity confounding
Independent and Dependent Variables

Variables are measurable elements that can

vary or take on different values along some
dimension

Independent Variable
o Dimension that the experimenter
intentionally manipulates
o Antecedent chosen to vary
o Independent values are created by
experimenter, not affected by anything
else in the experiment

Aspects of the environment (lighting

noise etc)
o Psychological
states
can
be
independent variables (anxious vs nonanxious etc.)
o Should have at least two values
o Levels of the Independent Variable

Each treatment condition =

one level of IV
o Ex post facto study explore the way
behavior changes as a function of
changes in variables outside the
researchers control

Subject
variables

characteristics
of
subjects
themselves

quasiexperimental
variables
as
independent variables

Various treatment groups differ

on subject variable, because sv
is the one we are testing
o In quasi experiments, researchers
select rather than create levels of IV
o In a true experiment, make certain
subjects in treatment groups do not
consist of people who are different on
preexisting characteristics
o Guard against systematic differences:
randomly assign subjects to diff.
treatments
o Confounding difference because of
manip
or
because
of
other
variables/characteristics?
Dependent Variable
o Particular behavior we expect to
change
o Its outcome we are trying to explain
o dependent measures
o Correct hypothesis diff values of IV,
produce changes in DV
Important
in
designing
exp:
selecting
appropriate IV DV
Focus on relevant antecedent variables
If we can specify ant. that lead to a behavior,
we have explained it scientifically
Assess accurately the impact of treatment
conditions, not on subjective judgment
(somewhat biased)
Identifying Variables
o If you do not need to manip ant. cond
by creating diff treatment cond, you do
not have an experimental hypothesis
o An IV in an experiment may fxn as DV
in another
Operational Definitions
o Not enough to have only conceptual
def.
o Without defining variables exactly,
meaning of findings will be unclear
o Conceptual definition used in
everyday language
o OD precise meaning of variable within
an experiment; defines variable in
terms
of:
observable
operations,
procedures and measurements
o

Clearly describes operations involved in

manipulation or measurement of vs
o How to carry out experiment
o Essential many variables of psych
cannot be observed directly
o In terms of observable reality
o X do not tell us how to produce
different levels or values of variables
Defining
IV:
Experimental
Operational
Conditions
o Describe exactly what was done to
create the various treatment conditions
o Includes all steps followed to set up
each value
o Ex.
Anxiety
exp
(high
anxiety:
presence of electronic equipment,
behavior of experimenter, explicit
statement of pain etc. Low anxiety:
absence
of
equipment,
relaxed
experimenter, explicit statements of
harmless shocks etc.)
o To evaluate and replicate our work:
detailed desc. how we set up our
treatments (ex. size of words, type of
printing, level of illumination etc.)
o Nonexperimental studies ex post
facto: ED is the procedure used to
select subj
Defining DV: Measured Operational Definitions
o Describe what we do to measure
variables
o What procedures to follow to asses
impact
of
different
treatment
conditions
o Include
exact
desc,
of
specific
behaviors/responses
recorded
and
explain how responses are scored
Defining Constructs Operationally
o Hypothetical constructs unseen
processes
postulated
to
explain
behavior
o Constructs that cannot be observed
directly
o Infer their existence thru behaviors we
can observe
o Different definitions of the same
construct in different experiments
o Effects produced on behavior may
differ from one operational definition to
another
o We have an objective, observable set
of measures to define anxiety (the
subjects responses to a fixed set of
test items)
Defining Nonconstruct Variables
o We can observe directly
o Ex. light vs dark (use of photometer),
what
constitutes
crying
of
babies/how do we know its crying etc.
Defining Scales of Measurement
o Consider
available
scales
of
measurement for each variable
o Many vs can be measured in more
than one way
o Meas. alternatives differ in the degree
of information they provide
o

Choice
between
diff.
levels
of
measurement: choose highest level
possible provides more info,
statistical tests can be used (for
interval and ratio, more powerful)
o Recap:

Nominal simplest level,

categories

Ordinal magnitude through

ranks

Interval equal intervals, no

true 0

Ratio equal intervals, w/ true

0
Evaluating Operational Definitions

Definition must be objective and precise to

evaluate and replicate

Reliability
o Consistency and dependability
o Apply in more than one experiment,
work in similar ways each time
o Ex. Hungry condition, always show
signs of hunger
o Haphazard definitions better needed
o Measured operational definitions
several sets of measurement same
results each time
o Select
measuring
instruments:
standardized tests
o The more accurate, the more likely it is
reliable
o Interrater reliability

Different
observers
take
measurements
of
same
responses

Agreement
between
measurements

Used in content analysis

Little agreement measuring

procedure not reliable

Eval
using
statistical
techniques
o Test-retest reliability

Compare scores of people

tested
twice
w/
same
instrument (after reasonable
interval)

Reliable produce very similar

scores
o Interitem reliability

Different parts of questionnaire

assessing same variable, attain
consistent results

Two major approaches in eval:

Internal consistency of
items test for single
construct

high
degree
of
internal
consistency if they are
reliably
measuring
same variable

Split-half reliability
split test into two
halves
at
random,
compute coefficient of
o

reliability
between
scores
^two halves should
correlate strongly
Cronbachs
a

considers correlation of
each item with every
other item

Validity
o Actually studying variables we intend
to study
o Could be reliable but not valid not
accomplish goals of experiment
o Compare consequences of various
procedures if all produce anxiety,
they should all lead to same observable
signs
o Necessary to provide evidence for
validity manipulation check
o Face validity

Measured fairly directly (not a

problem)

The procedure is self-evident

(ex. defining pupil size using
ruler)

Least stringent type of validity

Measured
operational
def:
whether we measured what we
intended
to
measure

consensus: procedures yield

info about v. we had in mind

Validity of MOD might not be

self-evident (for most psych
variables, not direct)

Response time considered a

valid measure
o Content validity

Content of measure reflect

content of quality we are
measuring?

All
aspects
of
content
represented appropriately?

High
content
validity

measuring
instrument
not
evaluating other qualities we
do not intend to meas.

Instrument in language hard to

understand

Objective judges with expertise

to judge validity

Degree of CV: depends on v we

want to measure

The more specific the variable,

the easier it will be

Weight gain easy to define

Emotions attitudes etc not

easy, lower content validity
o Predictive Validity

Procedures yield info that

enable use to predict future
behavior or performance

They
should,
if
we
are
measuring what was intended
to be measured
o Concurrent Validity

Compares scores with outside

criterion

Comparative
rather
than
predictive

Comparing
scores
from
instrument with other known
standard

Ur meas correlate with another

measure

High concurrent validity, highly

correlated
o Construct Validity

Perhaps most important

Transition
from
theory
to
research application

Start with gen idea of qualities

that characterize the construct
we want to test

Find ways of putting our idea to

an empirical test

Ex. does the test we used

actually measure hypothetical
construct we call intelligence?
As students, unlikely to be heavily involved in
construct validation
Job is to select most appropriate test
Test scores ought to show certain predictable
relationships with other related variables
Test results should correlate highly with scores
on other intelligence tests (convergent validity)
Tests should not correlate highly with scores
measuring other constructs (discriminant
validity)
Standardized tests cannot always be used
Evaluating the Experiment: Internal Validity
o Able to state a causal relationship
between ant cond and subsequent
observed behavior
o Goal of exp: assess impact of IV
o Internally valid: changes in behavior
across all treatments caused by IV
o If other explanations possible exp
not internally valid
Extraneous variable and confounding
o Inference is justified only when exp is
well controlled
o Extraneous variables: factors not the
focus of exp but influence findings, can
affect results
o Well controlled: recognize potential for
extraneous variables, use procedures
to control them
o Make them infrequent, random (does
not invalidate)
o Obscure effects we are interested in
o EV changes systematically with IV (bad
af)
o Changes in DV if EV changes with IV:
caused by IV or EV??
o EV changes with IV : confounding
o Causal relationships cannot be inferred,
cannot be interpreted with uncertainty
o Should be sure that EV does not
change w/ IV
Classical threats to internal validity

o
o
o
o
o
o

Quasi experimental contain classical

threats
^reason they are not true experiments
Confounded if EV present only in
certain experimental conditions but not
others
Lack internal validity if ^ are present
Cant be sure if effects were really
caused by manipulation
History

What happened before exp

session
Maturation

Any internal (phys or psych)

changes in subjects

Boredom, fatigue

More likely in within subjects

Lengthy testing sessions

Testing

Effects of DV from previous

testing (same test)

People
perform
differently
second time they are tested

Low test-retest reliability

large differences in scores

Performance improves even

without any special treatment
Instrumentation

Feature of meas instrument

changes

Scoring questionnaires by hand

etc.

Content analysis judgments

changing a little as they
become more familiar with
procedure
Statistical Regression

regression toward the mean

Assigned to conditions on basis

of extreme scores

Extreme scores less testretest reliability

Same extreme scorers likely

to be closer to the mean
second time around

Could
be
mistaken
for
treatment effects
Selection

Not
assigning
subjects
randomly

Control for ind. differences by

assigning subj to different
conditions

Different in a systematic way

(bad)

Nonrandom
assignment

subjects begin experiment with

diff charact. From subjects in
other conditions

These characteristics might be

the cause of observed effects
Subject Mortality

Dropout rates should also be

reported

Attrition rate
in particular
treatment high red flag


Confounding variable
Selection Interactions

A family of threats

Can combine with another

threat to form a selection
interaction

If
subjects
not
randomly
assigned to groups (or if
random assignment failed to
balance out differences among
subjects) + another threat
Planning the Method Section

Place to describe experiment (who what when

how)

For replication

Participants, Materials, Procedure

Participants
o Describe subjects
o Track genders, ages
o How many participated
o Did not complete study (report) +
reasons
o Not filling out questionnaire, not
included in data, report
o How they were recruited
o What they received in return

Any other info you feel might limit

generalizability of results should also be
included
o Certain ethnic/racial groups

Materials
o All items presented to subjects
o Any special or unusual equipment
o Careful notes about everything you did
in your experiment
o Verbal instructions

Procedures
o Describe all procedures used in
experimental sessions
o List in chronological order
CH. 8: Controlling Extraneous Variables
Physical Variables

Aspects of testing conditions (that need to be

controlled)

Ex. day of the week, appearance of the room,

noise etc.

To control: elimination, constancy, balancing

Elimination
o EV should be taken out amap
o If cannot be eliminatedmake them
constant

Constancy
o Keep
all
aspects
of
treatment
conditions as nearly similar as possible
o Not eliminate extraneous variable,
make them stay the same in all
treatment conditions
o Keep mechanics of procedure the same
o Write out instructions to subjects
o They should get exactly the same
conditions
o Same amount of time allowed

Balancing
o Confounding: something systematically
changes along with IV

Distribute effects of EV across different

treatment conditions
o Ex. People tested in room 1 day 1, half,
equal no. of subj in both conditions
apply the next day in different room
etc.
o Time of testing, weather conditions,
day of week etc
o Improve control by using block
randomization
o Limit on no. of EV controlled?
Eliminate EV whenever you can
Keep treatment cond as similar as possible
Balance out effects of other variables such as
the testing room etc.
Do not let EV change along with IV
Trade off between internal and external validity
More EV controlled, higher internal validity, but
might be reducing external validity
Balancing internal validity + greater external
validity
Internal validity > external validity
Variables
Qualities of relationships between subjects and
experimenters than can influence results
o Demand Characteristics

Demand that people behave in

a particular way

Often shaped by what we think

is expected behavior

Proper role of subject (good

subject, bad subject etc.)

We want participants to be as
nave as possible

We want that the IV changed

DV

Subjects often try to guess

hypo especially in withinsubjects exp

They could also try to produce

data that conflict with the
hypothesis (set out to disprove
it.. but support anyway!)

Controlling
demand
characteristics: Single blind
experiment subjects do not
know the treatment they are
getting

They can know what is going to

happen + purpose of the study
but not the treatment

*Placebo effect

Could confound exp because

expectation
varies
systematically with IV

Cover
stories

false
explanation
for
procedures
used in study; subjects would
not
look
for
another
explanation

deception
(should be used sparingly)
o Experimenter Bias

Experimenter gives cues that

tell subjects how to respond

Might
also
treat
subjects
differently depending on what
o

Social

they
expect
from
them
(Rosenthal effect)
Errors might also be committed
in recording data (misread
scale/score item to support
hypo)
To
control:
Double-Blind
Experiments: both participant
and experimenter not aware
which
treatment
is
given
(cannot bias responses in a
systematic way)
Not possible for single/double
try not to assign subj to
conditions until after we have
finished interacting with them
Give subj written instructions,
listen to tape etc.

Personality Variables

Experimenters
o Warm and friendly vs. cold and aloof
o High social desirability likeable
experimenters
o Improves subjects performance might
affect experiments external validity
o Extremely
important
to
maintain
consistency
in
interactions
with
subjects

Volunteer subjects

Use random assignments to balance

out
o Not much we can do
o Ex. volunteers vs. nonvolunteers, psych
sophomores vs. nonpsych sophomores
(not very representative of population_
Context Variables

Come about from procedures created by the

environment/context of research setting

Subject recruitment, selection, assignment etc.

When subjects select experiment:

o Titles can bias sample (diff topics, diff
types of people etc.)
o Try to keep names as neutral as
possible (without sounding boring)
o No shows, drop outs etc. report drop
outs, plan more sessions than needed
for no shows
o Avoid stating credit value

When experimenter selects subjects:

o Try not to recruit friends/if friends with
subject, groupmate should be the one
to interact with them instead of you
o Not random subj selection biased
sample, less generalizability

*some subjects contacted early in an

experiment behave differently from subjects
contacted later
o

POTA YES SHET