New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Notes for Exam 1 - 2/9/2016

by: Kali Webster

Notes for Exam 1 - 2/9/2016 30503

Marketplace > Texas Christian University > Psychlogy > 30503 > Notes for Exam 1 2 9 2016
Kali Webster

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover what will be on our first exam
Behavioral Research
Study Guide
Behavioral Research
50 ?




Popular in Behavioral Research

Popular in Psychlogy

This 6 page Study Guide was uploaded by Kali Webster on Saturday February 6, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to 30503 at Texas Christian University taught by Wiese in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 77 views. For similar materials see Behavioral Research in Psychlogy at Texas Christian University.


Reviews for Notes for Exam 1 - 2/9/2016


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 02/06/16
Behavior Research Study guide for exam 1 - Facilitated Communication: o Empirical study- systematic observations and draw conclusions from those observations o People are still using facilitated communication  Why?  Personal commitment: watch out for people who are personally committed bias  Vulnerability: parents of these children are vulnerable & leap at the first thing o Empirism: research scientists rely on systematic observations to draw conclusion: Plan….  Research question, hypothesis, subjects, use our senses to observe how they’re going to measure and manipulate variables Systematic observations: researchers have a plan and procedure to measure and manipulate variables o We use systematic observations because…  More reliable conclusions  Other researchers look and demonstrate your findings - Applied vs Basic Research o Applied practical purpose/ understanding of the world (ex. “what are effective ways to make people stop smoking death-related pictures) o Basic gain knowledge (ex. Terror Management Theory) - Social psychologists: testing how social environment influences behavior - Terror-management theory we fear something (death) that causes terror o Research question: “why do people have so much trouble getting along with different others? Why do we have such a strong need to feel good about ourselves?” o They came across Ernest Becker: philosopher who was influenced by Sigmund Freud o *why do people do what they do?  Because they’re pursuing immortality (unconsciously)  Pursuing self-esteem keeps thought of mortality at a minimum  Fear of death drives the dislike of different others o Basic argument in “the denial of death”  Humans are animals and have evolved a heavily symbolic system (we think in words and images)  Language allowed humans to become self-aware; we have symbolic self-identity  Self-awareness leads to the realization: “I am a physical being that’s going to die” terror  Culture helps the individual repress (Freud) their thought of mortality concerns; immortality projects:  Culture, rituals, faith, creativity, etc.  Someone who’s depressed, mortality projects don’t work for them and opens the flood gates for thoughts of death - “Why do we have such a strong need to feel good about ourselves?” o Because we’re warning off the thought of mortality 1-26-2016 - Why did 9/11 happen? o Islamic terrorists used 4 flights, 2 to the twin towers o 3,000 causalities - Why did this benefit Becker’s perspective? o Osama bin Laden thought his ideal of islam was completely correct o Laden saw the U.S as a threat o He wanted to attack America’s symbols - We kill and hurt others to defend our beliefs that repress mortality concerns - Why is this important to Becker? o We aren’t aware of what we want o We need more than one route to immortality o If we know what controls our thoughts of mortality, we can better control them o Try new things out!- Becker - TERROR MANAGEMENT THEORY o Relating world views and self-esteem to mortality thoughts o We seek out food, shelter, mates for survival o Humans have a complex mind which makes us think about mortality o The human mind developed self-esteem and cultural-world-views to limit mortality thoughts o Culture=set of beliefs, traditions, values - Experiment 1: o Theory: self-esteem is used to gain immortality  1. Literal (if you live up to Christianity standards, you literally will go to heaven  2. Symbolic immortality (you will be remembered by others after you pass) o Hypothesis/Prediction: “If cultural worldviews and self-esteem protect against death concerns, then reminding individuals of their mortality should increase faith in and allegiance of self-esteem” ** Mortality Salience Hypothesis ** o Experiment:  Christian students  IV: mortality salience  IV2: Christian vs Jewish individual profiles  DV: the liking of the profiles  *would expect mortality reminders to affect how they looked at the profiles*  Results: the students liked the Christian profiles better  SUPPORTS TERROR MANAGEMENT THEORY - Experiment 2: o Whether or not people, under mortality salience, If people would be aggressive towards others (using hot sauce)  IV: mortality salience, no mortality salience  IV2: the essays either: agreed with their political views, or threatening their world views  DV: how much hot sauce (grams) did they administer to the people  Results: when mortality was thought about, the average amount of hot sauce was higher  SUPPORTS TERROR MANAGEMENT THEORY - Experiment 3: self-esteem o How much people find themselves physically strong  Pre measure: hand dynamometer  IV: mortality salience/control  DV: comparing the pre-measure and the second measure of physical strength  Results: when experienced to mortality thoughts, significant increase in time 1 compared to time 2  SUPPORTS TMT - Experiment 4: Anxiety-Buffer Hypothesis o Strengthening self-esteem should protect individuals from death concerns o Weakening self-esteem should do the opposite  They artificially strengthened participants self-esteem  Told them that they used the pre-screen to make a personality profile  They told them that they were awesome  IV: half of participants were shown graphic videos mortality  DV: general anxiety (1-4) less= more  Results: positive self-esteem= lower levels of anxiety compared to “neutral” assessment  SUPPORTS TMT - Experiment 5: o Precipitants take an IQ test o Participants received feedback  IV: 1/3 were given very negative feedback, 1/3 were given neutral feedback, 1/3 were given very negative feedback  Death-thought accessibility: how easy death-thoughts come to mind  DV: “target word or non-word” is it a word or not  Presented 6 words associated with death  Results: the participants who received negative feedback, responded quicker to death-related words. Neutral and positive feedback responded the same  SUPPORTS - Experiment 6: o Death-related pictures and smoking  College kids who were casual smokers  IV: mortality-related pictures vs control  IV2: self-esteem ranks  DV: “do you look cool when you smoke?”  yes or no  Results: pictures + high self-esteem better attitudes, when pictures + high self-esteem lowers positivity towards smoking  Control was the opposite Researchers - Read and think A LOT - Develop a theory - Develop a procedure/prediction/hypothesis - Operationalize variables - Collect data - Analyze data - Communicate findings o Just finished study talking with other reseachers  Formal: conferences  1. Poster (one on one)  2. Talk (formal) (one on many) o Publish articles/ books  1. Empirical journal article (results/method)  2. Book chapter  summarizes a lot of empirical articles (review)  3. Review papers  review empirical articles  4. Meta-analysis  goes into a lot of empirical and statistical data (looks at results)  5. Book - “Why is scientific research the best way to answer research questions?” o Avoids some bias: personal experience, intuition, and authorities o Example: “does highlighting while reading influence student learning?”  Personal experience: “highlighting works for me!” (anecdotal evidence)  Lacks control group  she’s never tried studying without highlighting  Experience is confounded  another variable can explain the relationship (maybe she’s motivated, which is why she highlights more)  Experience is limited  sample is only one  Intuition: gut feeling  Our thinking is bias o Cognitive bias  availability heuristic - Fry Study: o If people had their self-esteem threatening, it will bias which articles the participants want to read  IV: half of subjects received “high threat” (IQ tests are reliable), half of subjects received “low-threat” (IQ tests were invalid)  IV2: subjects were given a stack of articles (5 argued that IQ tests were valid, 5 argued that IQ tests were invalid)  DV: participants rated their interests in reading the articles  Results: when self-esteem was threatened, they wanted to read the articles saying that IQ tests are invalid (bias)  ** this shows that people are motivated when answering questions if their self-esteem was threatened** - Authorities: we are bais towards what authorities tell us  we should ask for evidence - Scientific research addressing “does highlighting work” o Participants were asked to read 2 research articles o “we’re going to test you on these articles in a week” o IV: asked to highlight vs control o They were given a MC test o DV: performance on the MC test o Results: equal results o NO LINK Three Scientific Approaches to addressing research questions and four validities: - 1. Frequency approach: allows you to address the question  “how many fall under X” (%) o Example study:  “How many kids (up to 8 years old) in the U.S have been diagnosed with autism?”  1 out of 68 - 2. Correlational approach: relates one variable to another (e. testosterone levels are related to expressions of aggression)  measure both variables o Example study:  “When a college student wakes up, is it related to GPA?”   200 liberal arts students (there is no IV or DV)  Predictor variable: responses to when the get up  researchers access their GPA  Results: (-.35, p<.01) the later you wake up, is related to a higher GPA (moderate relationship) - 3. Experimental approach: you can infer causation (ex. “does playing violent video games cause expressions of aggression?”) o Example study:  “Does playing violent video games vs passively watching someone play, lead to aggression?”  Randomly assigned IV: (1. Actively playing violent video game,, 2. Passively watching someone play violent video game, 3. Playing a regular video game)  DV: means of aggression rank  Results: boys who actively played the violent video game vs boys who watched the game, showed more aggression (statistically significant) - 4. The four validities: o Construct validity: How did they get their information?  Find measured used, find manipulations, are they good measures/manipulations? (operationalized variables0 o External validity: who are the people in the sample? What population did they come from? Context?  Lab? Real world? o Statistical validity: is p<.05?  Do you have statistical evidence? How big is the relationship? (small, moderate, large) o Internal Validity: does the study rule out any confound?  experiments do this - Variable: anything that varies (ex. How many steps you take in a day), anything that has different levels (ex. Man vs woman) o Conceptual variable: define the variable (happiness related to self- satisfaction) o Operational definition: the actual measure/ manipulation of the variable o Hold variable constant: hold level constant (ex. Only do a study on women) - Measured variable: when a researcher comes in and measures the variable (half has one variable, half has other) - Manipulated variable: researcher manipulates the variable Rules for causation: - The variables have to be related (covary) - The causal variable comes first in time - There are no other explanations for the relationship (no confounds)


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Jennifer McGill UCSF Med School

"Selling my MCAT study guides and notes has been a great source of side revenue while I'm in school. Some months I'm making over $500! Plus, it makes me happy knowing that I'm helping future med students with their MCAT."

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.