Class Notes 1/25-1/30 (Aronson & Mills, Ethics)
Class Notes 1/25-1/30 (Aronson & Mills, Ethics) PSYC2012
Popular in Social Psychology
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by Emily Lowe on Friday January 30, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PSYC2012 at George Washington University taught by Dr. Duval in Spring2015. Since its upload, it has received 294 views.
Reviews for Class Notes 1/25-1/30 (Aronson & Mills, Ethics)
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 01/30/15
Class Notes Research Methods Continued Types of Correlational Research Cont Surveys questionnaires conducted in person over the phone or through the mail that examine the ways a group of people thinkact Advantage easy to collect and can ask about behaviors that are difficult to observe pretty cheapquickly Good for something people may not be comfortable talking about in a lab Disadvantage no causality and low response rates Sample can be skewed because of some people not responding Archival Research examination of already existing records NOT COLLECTING any new data Advantage easy plentiful data cheap Disadvantage cannot add new variables don t know quality of original data collection still no causality Internal Validity extent to which causal conclusions about the effect of the IV can be substantiated Did the IV cause the changes in the DV If it is a true experimental design it has high internal validity Random assignment controlled outlying factors true experimental variables etc because true experiments gt causality External Validity extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other populations and settings How well would it apply to the entire population of interest In general experiments are often higher in INTERNAL validity than in EXTERNAL validity Can sacrifice internal validity for higher external validity Sample who is actually participating in the study who you are collecting data from Population the group the sample represents who the results apply to NOTE these are NOT the opposite of one another even though they are sometimes at odds Confounding Variables occurs when a variable is added unsystematically to an experiment For example if we have less attractive ask students about increasing fees in January and have the more attractive ask students in May we have introduced a confound Students may be in a better mood in May because it is sunny so they are more accepting of the idea of increased student fees INTERNAL validity is threatened when confounds are introduced Cover Story provides a rationale for the study so the participant won t provide hisher own rationale Usually participants have some idea of what is being researched and so their behavior could be altered by what they think the researchers want to find A way to fix this could be telling them a cover story telling them what is being researched doesn t need to be true but it is often part of the truth but not the whole truth Particularly important in social psychology due to our investigation of morally relevant behavior Not always important to have such as a physiological study you can t change your results on an EKG Experimenter biasdemand when an experimenter influences the responses of the participant by subtly suggesting an appropriate response Subtly because the researcher does not normally try to do this You want the hypothesis to be supported because the data supported it not due to experimenter bias Prevent experimenter demand through Blind to condition E not knowing which level of the IV participant is being exposed to Blind to hypothesis E not knowing the prediction for each level of the IV Construct Validity of the IV Did we get at what we thought we were getting at how well you operationalized your IV Aronson and Mills Article Discussion True Experimental Design because Levels of initiation severity Participants are randomly assigned to levels Conceptual Independent Variable Level of severity of initiation Conceptual Dependent Variable Liking of the group Operational Independent Variable type embarrassing words at 3 levels Operational Dependent Variable questionnaires on how much they liked the discussion There are 2 main DVs liking of discussion and liking of the group Because it might be harder to slam people than a discussion Hypothesis Person who endures a severe level of initiation will like a group more than a person who endures a mild level of initiation or no initiation Internal Validity relatively high because they used prerecorded conversations and the same group of words for each level Comfortable in talking about causality External Validity relatively low because there are various types of initiation styles all the participants are all women Construct Validity of the IV Did we get at what we thought we were getting at how well you operationalized your IV In this case was asking participants to say embarrassing words a good way of manipulating initiation severity Should have asked whether it was embarrassing to read the list of words or not or done a pretest on what words are embarrassing to read 39 POTENTIAL CRITICISM of this study Why weren t they listening to a real group Real reason hard to control a real discussion and ensure it is the same for every participant Reason participant was given the cover story is that they find people are more comfortable talking about sex when they are not staring at other people Why were they told they were replacing another group member due to time constraints So that the participant didn t think the other person left because they didn t like the group All of these things were done to avoid confounds Blind to condition was this present in this experiment The participants read the words to the experimenter so they experimenter was NOT blind to condition Blind to hypothesis was this present in the experiment He designed the study so he was NOT blind to hypothesis Because neither of these things are present this experiment could have had experimenter bias ETHICS Ethics discipline dealing with good and evil and moral duty Good side of psychological research KNOWLEDGE self others used to influence social policy etc Evil side of psychological research HARM psychological harm to self could use knowledge in negative ways could be psychical harmful Maximize knowledge and minimize harm There is a lot of gray area in ethics lot in the middle Culturally specific and time period specific 3 major ways to protect participants 1 Informed Consent provides participants with as full as possible description of what they will be asked to do before they decide to participate Won t tell them everything but tell them things that might influence their willingness to participate Often written requires a signature Ability to leave without losing creditmoney Confidentiality info should only be seen by those analyzing the data Debriefing provides participants with full explanation of the study after the study is over Explain hypothesis usually sometimes you may not if the study is taking a place over a few months Removal of deception Use of participants as consultants Particularly helpful in Pilot Studies a prestudy where a few participants test run the study to see if there are any problems Scouting goal leave better than arrived psychologically and physical as good or better than when they got there Institutional Review Board lRBs a board of university and community members who evaluate all research at the university and must approve it as ethically acceptable before it can be conducted this board is a way that cultural ethics differences are addressed in each study Every aspect of study must be sorted out before handing it to the IRB Importance of research vs potential harm to participants Will temporarily harm be alleviated by the end of study As part of the study there may be some embarrassing things they need to do during the study will they feel okayunderstand why at the end Would you let a friend sister participate 10 ethically questionable practices never allowed under any circumstances 1 lnvolve people in research without their knowledge or consent When s this okay naturalistic observation public place 2 Coercing people to participate 3 Withholding the true nature of the research Always do this at a certain point but can t do this if it would prevent people from participating 4 Deceiving the participants Must be very specific when debriefing participants This should be a last resort 5 Leading subjects to commit acts that diminish their selfrespect 6 Collecting data that could be used to slander participants social group 7 Exposing subjects to physicalmental stress 8 lnvading the privacy of participants Differs 9 Withholding benefits from participants in control groups Mainly involving drug experiments If a treatment is significantly helping the experimental group the researcher would need to tell the controlplacebo group give them the choice to take the drug eventually 10 Failing to treat participants fairlynot showing them consideration and respect