PSC 41 Week 4 Notes
PSC 41 Week 4 Notes PSC 41
Popular in Research Methods in Psychology
Popular in Psychology
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Kayla Dillard on Monday October 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSC 41 at University of California - Davis taught by Dr. Cross in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Research Methods in Psychology in Psychology at University of California - Davis.
Reviews for PSC 41 Week 4 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: 10/10/16
10/10/16 Lecture 6 MT1: Scantron and cheat sheet (8.5x11 paper front and back (make a copy of it))! 40 mc questions 2 written questions (1 will be critical thinking with a claim—it will not be believable, other will be a research summary) Validity (accurate) and Reliability (consistent) review—construct validity • • want to measure how many people are living in an area with a high number of undocumented immigrants • they could ask, but the people probably wouldn’t tell you they flew a heat seeking camera over all of the homes to see how many people were • living in the neighborhood • internal validity: • was it the independent variable that caused a change in the dependent variable? external validity: • • does this study reflect what typically happens in the world? • generally as one (internal or external) goes up the other goes down • statistical validity: drawing valid conclusions based on appropriate statistical analysis • reliability is necessary for validity frequency claims association claims causal claims construct validity essential essential essential statistical validity essential essential internal validity essential external validity essential Clicker Questions: If you are questioning the operational definition of the variable, you are questioning the construct validity. Generally, experiments have high internal validity and low external validity. Aresearcher is interested in altruism. He measures participants’score on a question deductive reasoning task (e.g. all en are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore…) This measure probably has high reliability and low validity. Target data:ADHD diagnosis Operational definition: “Do you think that you haveADHD?” • face validity: likely to know whether or not you haveADHD • method match: monitoring Measurement • our abstract number system • identity: each number has its own meaning • magnitude: numbers have an inherent order • equal intervals: difference between units is the same anywhere on the scale • true zero: zero means nothing Psychological Variables • nominal: naming, no inherent order (ex: male, female) • ordinal: order, but not equal intervals (ex: place in a race) • interval: identity, magnitude, equal intervals (ex: personality tests, IQ tests) • ratio: has identity, magnitude, equal intervals, true zero (ex: score on an exam) identity magnitude equal interval true zero nominal X ordinal X X interval X X X ratio X X X X Mathematical Operations rank order add and subtract multiply and divide nominal ordinal X interval X X ratio X X X How you measure variable directly influences what conclusions you can make • • continuous: numbers (ratio and interval) • is there a true zero? yes—>ratio, no—>interval • categorical: words (ordinal and nominal) • is there an order? yes—>ordinal, no—>nominal • apa style? look at tutorials? Ethics in Research: • research is a collaboration between the experimenter and the participant • Institutional Review Board • group of researchers at each research institution that reviews proposed studies • every study must air IRB approval each year • weigh the risk and benefits • consider any long-term effects • Participant rights • informed consent participants have the right to know what is being asked of them • • what if risks are involved • voluntary participation • participants have the right to stop at any time • Confidentiality • making sure no-one can identify a particular participant’s performance • reporting group averages rather than individual scores • Deception • not telling participants the true goal of the study • using confederates to stage an experience (research assistants act as participants) Ex: self-esteem and love • led participants to believe that their romantic partner was rejecting them • some participants had high self-esteem and some had low self-esteem • people with low self-esteem tend to think that they are being rejected even if they are not • method: 65 couples in dating relationships, asked to sit back to back and not talk, given a series of questions (one at a time), measuring self-esteem, one person writes all the important qualities about their partner that they don't like while the other lists all the items in their room • low self esteem people when felt rejected rated their partner as much less attractive and ranked their closeness as much less
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'