Research Methods

Instructor: Cherisse Seaton

Psychology 301Social Psychology

Lecture 4, September 11, 2008

Psychology Program Orientation Meeting

Day & Time: Monday Sept. 15 at 5:30 pmLocation: Bentley CentreWho: Undergraduate students wanting to learn more about the Psychology Program at UNBC

and free pizza

OverviewToday we will cover:

Introduction to research methodsCommon misinterpretations of research

evidence and fallacies in reasoningCritical thinking guidelines

ReadingsAronson et al. Chapter 2

ReviewChallenge to cognitive dissonance paradigm Important skills to make you ‘game show’

competitiveIntroduction to methods in Social Psychology

Research MethodsTheory

Definition: “An organized set of principles that can be used to

explain observed phenomena” (Aronson et al. p.32)

Explain a part of behaviourMust be testableParsimony

Research Design1.) Experimental Research

Random assignment to ‘groups’‘Quasi-experimental’

Looking at group differences, but you cannot assign individuals to groups

E.g., Gender2.) Correlational Research

Looking at the relationship between variables, but cannot determine cause and effect

3.) Observational ResearchObserving behaviour in natural habitat

Experimental Research1.) Experimental method (typically lab studies)

Definition: “The method in which the researcher randomly assigns

participants to different conditions and ensures that these conditions are identical except for the independent variable (the one thought to have a causal effect on people’s responses)” (p. 41)

Variables Independent variables (IVs) Dependent variables (DVs)

Conditions If variable has a number of levels, each is a different

condition Control vs. experimental group

Random Assignment vs. Random selection

Random selection“A way of ensuring that a sample of people is representative

of a population, by giving everyone in the population an equal chance of being selected for the sample” (Aronson et al. p.38)

E.g., Survey data – random digit dialingEnsures results of study will be generalizable

Random assignment“The process whereby all participants have an equal chance

of taking part in any condition of an experiment” (Aronson et al. p.45)

Once participants are selected, we randomly assign them to each ‘group’ or ‘condition’

Ensures there are no inherent difference between participants in each condition

Correlational Research2.) Correlational Method

Definition: “The technique whereby researchers

systematically measure two or more variables, and assess the relation between them (ie. how much one can be predicted from the other)” (p.36)

Determine relationships between variables

Correlation coefficientRelationship between two

variables. Positive correlation: as one variable goes up,

the other goes up Ranges from 0 (no correlation) to 1 (perfect

correlation)Negative correlation: as one variable goes up,

the other goes downRanges from 0 to -1

Correlation

Positive correlation

Negative correlation

No correlation

Research Approaches3.) Observational method

Definition: “The technique whereby a researcher observes

people and systematically records measurements of their behaviour” (p.33)

Observing behaviour in natural habitat

Archival analysis “A form of the observational method, whereby the

researcher examines the accumulated documents, or archives, of a culture (e.g., diares, novels, magazines, and newspapers)” (p.35)

Lab vs. field studiesLab studies

Advantages: Control – elimination of confounds

Disadvantages Artificiality - Generalization Simplicity Deception

Field studiesAdvantages:

‘Real world’ studies Can be experimental or observational

Disadvantages More confounds; less control

Interpreting ResearchImportance of “triangulation”

VariablesStudies/concepts

Common mistakesInterpreting causation from correlationTwo variables are related, but we cannot

claim that one causes the other3rd variableNeurological studies (e.g., fMRI) seem to be

particularly susceptible to misinterpretation E.g., Left-wing Vs. Right-wing Brains

Left-wing Vs. Right-wing BrainsAmodio et al. (2007) - Liberals and

Conservatives Inhibition task & neurological correlates.

Other misinterpretationsConclusion goes past the researchThe conclusion may be erroneous or is not

justified by the facts.

Are girls biologically predisposed to prefer pink?Hurlbert & Ling (2007)New York times:

“At last, science discovers why blue is for boys but girls really do prefer pink”

Sex differences in color preferencesConclusion: evolutionary adaptation

Men = blue sky, good weather (hunting) Women = Pink/red berry picking (gathering)

Study resultsDiscriminative

ability vs. preference

Cultural or genetic?

Evidence vs. hypothesis

Misinterpretations of ResearchLogical fallacies

1.) Fallacies of deception2.) Fallacies which use motive in place of

support3.) Fallacies which employ both deception and

emotion

1.) Fallacies of deceptionFalse dilemma/False alternatives -

"either/or" thinking Slippery slope/Adverse consequences

fallacy – The legitimacy of an argument is based on consequences

Appeal to ignorance – no evidence establishing x is false; therefore, x is true

Hasty generalizations/Availability bias - general conclusion based on an exceptional case, or on a very small sample

2.) Fallacies which use motive in place of supportAppeal to authority – Basing argument on

authority of it’s sourceAppeal to force (or fear) – You will be hurt if

you do not believe xAppeal to pity – I will be hurt if you do not

believe xAppeal to mass opinion /Ad populum fallacy

- validity of an argument should be evaluated by considering its acceptance among the general public

3.) Fallacies which employ bothAttacking the person – “Ad Hominem” –

Attempts to discredit source of an argument through circumstantial (guilt by association) evidence, or name calling Genetic fallacy - the error that the validity of

an argument should be evaluated by considering its source

Tu Quoque – Two wrongs – charge of wrongdoing is answered with retaliation

Example of many fallacies at workLilienfeld (2002) “When Worlds Collide”

Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysis: CSALink between CSA and psychopathologyAlthough the authors warned:

“…lack of harmfulness does not imply lack of wrongfulness (p.47)”

“…Society has, for instance, made laws against drinking by minors not because most adults state that underage drinking was a negative experience for them, but because legislators focus instead on concerns such as public safety (p.203).”

Rind et al. (1998) meta-analysisMeta-analysisDefinition:

“A statistical technique that averages the results of two or more studies to see if the effect of an independent variable is reliable” (Aronson et al. p.48)

Events Following ArticleDr. Laura

“If it’s science, why don’t they endorse it? If it’s not, why do they publish it?”

Attacked the technique of meta-analysisAttacked the legitimacy of the authorsAsserted that the studies results should not be

trusted as they contradicted conventional wisdom (common sense)

Events Following ArticleWhy didn’t people see the positive?

Not all victims of CSA are ‘doomed’ Possible to recover after experiencing CSA and victims can go

on to live full an happy lives; Possible mitigating variables, or experiences that allowed

them to move on with their lives (such as the support of a loving family)

Although the methods of the study were sound, it also in no way ‘proves’ CSA is not harmful (things are not proven in scientific research) Just as correlation cannot be taken to indicate causation,

(because there may be a 3rd variable, for example), lack of correlation cannot be taken to indicate lack of causation – could be some ‘mitigating’ variable accounting for lack of long term maladjustment

Dr. Laura’s ErrorsFundamental errors in logical reasoning:

False dilemmaAdverse consequences fallacyGenetic fallacyAd populum fallacy

Lay persons have a tendency to believe that if an argument runs counter to common sense, then it should not be trusted.

Why?Gap between academic and popular psycScientific evidence and the public’s

(mis)understanding“Common sense”

Social-cognitive errors: Motivated biases Belief perseverance (Confirmation bias)Pre-existing beliefs stemming from availability

biasCognitive dissonance Fear/threat promote defensiveness

Why?Social-cognitive errors: Motivated biases

Influence individual’s reasoning about information, even if that information is presented accurately.

If information challenges an individual’s self or their beliefs they may distort, deny or dismiss it. E.g., smoking

Introducing a complicated problem with no clear solution and highly political implications may be inviting denial

Avoiding MistakesUsing evidence based reasoning and avoiding

biasThinking critically about the information

you’re presented with (even when others aren’t)

Drawing reasonable conclusionsErrors in logic can be avoided by following 6

rules

Six rules of evidence based reasoning 1.) Falsifiability 2.) Logic3.)

Comprehensiveness

4.) Honesty5.) Replicability 6.) Sufficiency

1.) FalsifiabilityIt must be possible to conceive of evidence

that would prove the claim falseProblems with circularity

The use of multiple ‘outs’Original Freudian theory

Undeclared claimPredicting the future: “2009 will be a year

filled with changes”

2.) LogicAny argument offered as evidence in support

of a claim must be soundInvalid argument – counterexample:

All dogs have fleas; Mittens has fleas; therefore Mittens is a dog

Flea-ridden feline “Mittens” provides an effective counterexample – the argument is not valid

3.) ComprehensivenessThe evidence offered in support of a claim

must be exhaustive – that is, all the available evidence must be considered

Cannot simply discard the evidence that contradicts a theory, and consider only that which supports itEffectiveness of therapyPremonition: one prediction came true, but

hundreds did not

4.) HonestyThe evidence offered in support of any claim

must be evaluated without self-deceptionIf the overwhelming evidence falsifies your

belief, then you must come to the rational conclusion that your belief is false

Honestly seek out the ‘truth’

5.) Replicability If the evidence for any claim is based upon an

experimental result, or if the evidence offered in support of any claim could logically be explained as coincidental, then it is necessary for the evidence to be repeated in subsequent experiments or trials

Guards against implicit (or conscious!) experimenter bias and undetected error

Independent observers following the same procedures should achieve the same results

6.) SufficiencyThe evidence offered in support of any claim must be

adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:1. The burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant2. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence,

and3. Evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is

always inadequateAbsence of disconfirming evidence is not confirmation

E.g., not all UFO sighting can be explained; therefore, they must be extraterrestrial

No amount of expertise can preclude human fallibility

Science Vs. Common SenseCommon sense is not especially commonScientific method:

Not merely formalized common senseTechniques designed to minimize believing

what is not trueDesigned to minimize the confirmation bias

Next Class…Attitudes Attitude Change

Subliminal messages: Past and presentPersuasionAdvertising