Psych week 3 Notes
Psych week 3 Notes Psyc 2010
Popular in Intro to Psychology
Popular in Psychlogy
This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Samantha Silseth on Sunday January 31, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Psyc 2010 at Auburn University taught by Seth A Gitter in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 37 views. For similar materials see Intro to Psychology in Psychlogy at Auburn University.
Reviews for Psych week 3 Notes
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: 01/31/16
Intro to Psych (1/25-1/29) Correlational Research - Are 2 or more factors naturally associated? o Cross Sectional Ex) Collect 100 people & measure 1.) How many hours a week do you play video games? 2.) How aggressive are you 1-10? Statistical analysis between the 2 variables Calculated by the correlation coefficient (it reflects the strength of the relationship) and see which way the variables move. Strength: ranges from -1.00 to +1.00. The larger the absolute value (distance to 0), the stronger the relationship. Ex) a relationship with a -1.00 strength and a relationship with a +1.00 strength have equal strengths. In smaller relationships, the correlation coefficient is closer to 0. In larger relationships the correlation should approach +/- 1.00. What is a strong vs weak coefficient? .5-.6 is very strong .3-.4 is moderately strong .2-0 is weak/ meaningless Correlation looks like a scatter plot graph w/ a best fit line where the slop determines the magnitude of the correlation. One point represents one person & the relationship between the variables. Predict by looking at one variable’s score, & find that location on the best fit line, then see where you should be for the other variable. Types of Correlations Ex) Attendence & Gpa - Positive correlation : both variables are increasing - 0-1, variables move in the same direction Attendence & Gpa Ex) Alcohol consumption & Gpa - Negative/Inverse correlation: 1 increases & 1 decreases Y-Value 1 Ex) Grades & hair length (no relationship) Y-Value 1 2 Correlation research - When we compute the correlation is does NOT imply causation. Ex) # of ice cream cones consumed a day & # of crimes a day have a positive correlation but they do not cause each other. (the high temperatures cause it) 3 ways to interpret the correlation Ex) violent video game play is associated with aggression - A to B: A causes B o Playing violent video games causes aggression - B to A: B causes A o Aggressive people like violent video games *Directionality problem- we don’t know if A causes B or B causes A or if there is even a relationship* - C to A&B: spurious relationship o 3 variable problem, it appears that two variables are related but they are not. Ex) Nicholas Cage movies released each year corresponds with the number of crimes per year. Correlations aren’t bad science - it’s a good starting point - sometimes it’s the only way to study a topic - however, there are better ways to study than using correlations Experimental studies - we cannot manipulate certain variables like personality Causation - 3 things needed to establish causation 3 o co-variation- correlations can show this o temporal precedence- you cant say something happens before another ( that would be longitudinal studies), experiments can show this. o Elimination of spuriousness- how experiments eliminate them - But how? o Manipulate one factor (Independent variable) and see how it effects another (Dependent variable) which allows the establishment of temporal precedence. (This reduces concern about the directional problem) o In a controlled setting Reduces concerns about spuriousness/ 3 rd variable problem Can show relationship between 2 variable Ex) does playing violent video games increase aggressive behavior? – Have all the 100 participants have the same exact experience except ½ play a violent game and ½ play a normal game. (this provides co-variation and gives evidence for all the criteria) Hypothesis: Violent video games cause an increase in aggression - Conceptual definitions are bad; we need to use operational definitions. o What is a violent video game? How do we measure aggression? - Independent variable: Type of video game o Identify experimental & control conditions 4 Experimental: Plays the man-hunt killing game (very violent, uses an axe to kill people) Control: Lumberjack game (cuts down trees using an axe) Other factors that can effect the experiment: one game is more realistic and the other is a cartoon, also one could be easier than the other. Internal Validity - Random Assignment (so you don’t naturally put the aggressive looking people with the aggressive game for your benefit) o Each participant needs to be equally likely to be in either condition Reduces concerns about alternative factors & gives us strongest evidence Variables not eliminated should be held constant to not effect the dependent variable Other Examples - Observing kids playing with a bozo doll to observe their aggressive behaviors o Are they pushing it harder or being less gentle? - Electric shock o Allowing a person to shock someone repeatedly - Hot sauce o Tell someone to put hot sauce on a sandwich for a person who hates hot sauce and if they put a lot on they’re an aggressive person If they can’t determine aggression, causes them to determine other factors 5 - If one group differs from another is the effect real (Ex. If one group shocks someone a lot and the other doesn’t) o Need to establish if the differences are meaningful by graphing the data o Longevity of other brads Significant differences - Meaningful differences between 2 groups o Ex) test scores differ between right & left side of a classroom o Ex) Aggression level of the group that played the violent game compared to the group that didn’t - Statistical significance o The likelihood that the result occurred by chance. o Psychologists usually accept a 5% probability or lower. Run 100 times and 95% of the effect is present Neuroscience & Behavior The Biology of Psychology - Franz Gall o You have a characteristic and this causes your brain to grow in one area. Ex) murder organ: what caused people to engage in violence was the part of the skull that protruded. (except that was false because he didn’t test normal people and everyone’s skull protrudes in that area) 6
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'