Notes for Exam 1 - 2/9/2016
Notes for Exam 1 - 2/9/2016 30503
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)
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
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'