Research Methods Chapter 3 & 5

The person experiencing dissonance is motivated to reduce the discomfort and bring the cognitions into harmony and consistency, according to the theory. Dissonance reduction can come about by several means: One or both of the cognitions could be altered, behavior could be changed, or additional cognitions could be added to bring the two dissonant cognitions into consonance.

ex smoking

Creative Thinking

involves a process of recognizing meaningful connections between apparently unrelated ideas and seeing those connections as the key to developing the study. Such thinking does not occur in a vacuum, however, but rather in the context of some problem to be solved by a scientist with considerable knowledge of the problem.

deduction

reasoning from a set of general statements toward the prediction of a specific event. With regard to theory, deduction takes the form of the scientist reasoning that if the theory is correct, then a specific research outcome can be predicted and should occur with some probability greater than chance.

Mundane Realism

refers to how closely a study mirrors real‐life experiences.

falsification

science proceeds by setting up theories and then attempting to falsify them. Theories that are continually resistant to falsification are accepted as possibly true (with the emphasis on possibly). Recall our earlier comment that confidence in a theory increases as inductive support accumulates. This confidence never becomes absolute, however, because of the limits of induction. For example, 100 predictions derived from a theory could support it, but one disconfirmation could potentially call it into question. Of course, we've already seen that one disconfirmed hypothesis never leads to a wholesale abandonment of a theory. Nonetheless, Popper's argument suggests that disconfirmation carries greater weight than confirmation. At the least, a study that does not come out as expected requires that the disconfirmations be investigated thoroughly.

confederate

someone who appears to be part of the normal environment but is actually part of the study.

Field Studies

the environment more closely matches the situations we encounter in daily living. Although field research is often applied research and laboratory research is often basic research, you should know that some basic research takes place in the field and some applied research takes place in the laboratory.

good theories do what

- generate new research - subject to falsification - parsimony

John Stuart Mill

"Joint Method" (Agreement and Difference)

Advantages of Field Research

- First, conditions in the field often cannot be duplicated in a laboratory. - to confirm the findings of laboratory studies and perhaps to correct misconceptions or oversimplifications that might be derived from the safe confines of a laboratory. -make discoveries that could result in an immediate difference in the lives of the people being studied. -although field research is ordinarily associated with applied research, it is also a good setting in which to do basic research.

Independent Variables

- Minimum of two levels - Situational vs. Task vs. Instructional - Manipulated vs. Subject variables • e.g., Effects of anxiety on memorization • Causation with manipulated and/or subject variables?

literature reviews

- PsycInfo - PsycArticles

Basic Research

- Some research in psychology emphasizes describing, predicting, and explaining the fundamental principles of behavior and mental processes and such research goals define basic research. - those involved in basic research study such topics perception, learning, cognition, and basic neurological and physiological processes as they relate to psychological phenomena. - A basic research study might investigate the ability of people to simultaneously complete two different information‐processing tasks in a laboratory. The researcher might examine the effects of the similarity of the tasks, their difficulty, and so on

Hubel and Weisel, 1959

- They were investigating the behavior of single neurons at various points in the visual pathway to see if the neurons could be made to fire in response to certain stimuli. Their experimental setup consisted of a screen on which stimuli could be projected and seen by a cat with its head held stationary and an electrode implanted within a single cell of its visual system. Looking for neuron firing in response to a specific stimulus (a dot), Hubel and Wiesel accidentally (i.e. serendipitously) discovered that the edge of the slide was the key stimulus. The unexpected finding that cells ("edge detectors") in the visual system were specialized to respond to edges and contours set at specific orientations was just the beginning. Hubel and Wiesel went on to develop an extensive research program identifying the types of stimuli that would trigger cells at all levels of the visual system; it won them the Nobel Prize in 1981.

Threats to Internal Validity:

- Within-subjects designs (pretest-posttest) • History • Maturation • Regression - Extreme scores are less likely • Testing - Practice effects • Instrumentation - Is an observer an instrument? • Participant Problems: - Between-subjects designs • Subject selection effects - Are your groups equivalent? - Brady et al. (1958) - Executive monkey study - Attrition • Longitudinal studies (within-subjects) are particularly susceptible to the effects of attrition. •Are your groups the same at the end of the experiment?

Dependent Variables

- importance of operational definitions

where do research ideas come from?

- new research - extensions of prior research - serendipity (Hubel and Weisel, 1959)

Control vs. Experimental Group Are control groups necessary?

- no

construct

A construct is a hypothetical factor that is not observed directly; its existence is inferred from certain behaviors and assumed to follow from certain circumstances. Hence, cognitive dissonance is assumed to exist following circumstances of cognitive inconsistency and presumably leads to certain predictable behaviors.

sometimes believed that applied research is more valuable than basic research because an applied study seems to concern more relevant problems and to tackle them directly. It could be argued, however, that a major advantage of basic research is that the principles and procedures (e.g., shadowing) developed through basic research can potentially be used in a wide range of applied situations, even though these uses may not have been considered when the basic research was being done.

Another impediment to basic research is that IRBs sometimes favor applied over basic research; nonpsychologist members of an IRB in particular often fail to see the relevance of basic laboratory procedures (Kimmel, 2007).

Is it possible for a psychological construct (e.g., anxiety) to be an independent, extraneous, and/or dependent variable?

Basic research in psychology aims to discover fundamental principles of behavior, while applied research is undertaken with specific practical problems in mind. Both basic and applied research can take place in either the laboratory or a field setting. Laboratory research allows greater control, but field research more closely approximates real‐life situations.

operational definitions

Bridgman argued that the terminology of science must be totally objective and precise, and that all concepts should be defined in terms of a set of "operations" or procedures to be performed. In other words, a researcher defines how the concepts to be studied "operate" in an experiment. These types of definitions came to be called operational definitions. The length of some object, for instance, could be defined operationally by a series of agreed‐on procedures. I

A final point is that Bushman and Anderson (2009) clearly recognized the interpretation problems that can occur in field research, which allows less control than laboratory research. In the lab, the random assignment procedure yielded two roughly equivalent groups of subjects. In the field study, however, it is possible individuals who opted to see the violent film were different types of people than those who chose to see the nonviolent film.

Bushman and Anderson's (2009) experiments show laboratory research and field research can converge on the same conclusion. To the extent such an outcome occurs, it strengthens the argument that both types of research are important and necessary. But is the Bushman and Anderson outcome an isolated event? Can it be said in general that the results of laboratory research mirror the results of field research? Anderson, Lindsay, and Bushman (1999) examined several topics within social psychology and found a large collection (288 studies in all) of laboratory and field studies that investigated the same topics. For example, in the area of aggression, they matched lab and field studies investigating the effects of anonymity on aggressive behavior. They found a relatively high degree of correspondence between the results found in and outside the lab. Other studies have reached similar conclusions, although it appears that the lab‐field correspondence is higher in some areas than others. the overall outcome of lab‐field correspondence research provides aid and comfort to laboratory researchers (in most fields) who tire of hearing about the "artificiality" of their studies and to field researchers who tire of hearing about how their studies lack the controls that enable firm conclusions to be drawn.

Louis Pasteur

Chance Favors the Prepared Mind- or Edna E. Mode As the famous biologist Louis Pasteur put it, "chance favors the prepared mind" (cited in Myers, 1992, p. 335). Thus, serendipity does not by itself produce an idea for a research study; the serendipitous event must be seen by the scientist immersed in a topic as the missing piece that solves the problem at hand. This is one reason why researchers work in teams: The presence of several minds increases the chances someone will have an idea another team member will see as the missing piece to the puzzle.

Confound

Ex. Assessment of new teaching technique. Uses new technique in morning PSYC 220 class and uses old technique for afternoon PSYC 220 class. Class receiving new technique does much better. Can we conclude that new technique is more effective?

Experimental Realism

Experimental realism concerns the extent to which a research study (whether in the laboratory or in the field) "has an impact on the subjects, forces them to take the matter seriously, and involves them in the procedures"

External Validity

External validity should generalize to: - Other populations - Other environments - Other times

Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance illustrates the process nicely. For example, he used the theory to hypothesize about what happens after people make difficult decisions. What makes some decisions difficult is that both alternatives have positive and negative attributes. Deciding which house to buy would be a snap if everything about house A was good and everything about house B was bad. In reality, however, both A and B have good and bad features. Regardless of which decision is made, Festinger hypothesized, dissonance would occur immediately after the final choice, because the person would have chosen something with some negative attributes and rejected something with some positive attributes

Festinger proposed the person would make cognitive changes accentuating both the positive features of the chosen alternative and the negative features of the rejected alternative In terms of the deductive logic, Festinger's prediction might have gone like this: "If dissonance theory is correct, then, after a difficult decision, the values placed on the attributes of the selected and rejected alternatives will alter in a specific way that will reduce dissonance." This could lead to the design of a study in which individuals would choose between two attractive items; then, later, they would evaluate both the chosen and nonchosen item in some fashion.

Despite this problem with the strict use of operational definitions, the concept has been of value to psychology by forcing researchers to clearly define the terms of their studies (Hilgard, 1987). This is especially important when you consider that most research in psychology concerns concepts that are open to numerous definitions.

For psychologists, the problem with operationism boiled down to how to accomplish it in practice when dealing with such complex psychological phenomena as aggression, creativity, depression, and so on. Among physicists it might not be difficult to agree on a set of operations for measuring the length of a line, but how does one operationalize a concept like "aggression"? Even if psychologists could agree that the term refers to a behavior that reflects intent to harm (Aronson, 2007), exactly what behaviors are to be measured? In the aggression literature over the years, the term has been operationalized as behaviors ranging from the delivery of electrical shocks to horn honking by car drivers to pressing a button that makes it hard for someone else to complete a task. Are these behaviors measuring the same phenomenon?

confirmation bias

Hearing an interesting anecdote about a dog that appears to be using logical reasoning, the listener with a preconceived bias about dog intelligence might see this as a confirming example of dog brilliance, while ignoring other instances in which a dog's behavior did not seem so smart

Ethical Considerations for field research?

IRBs (and IACUCs) have special considerations for field studies

In some cases, what is learned from basic research can be useful in an applied project from a completely different topic area. For instance, the serial position effect, the tendency to recall words from the beginning and end of a list better than remembering words from the middle, is a well‐known finding from basic research on memory.

If it is true that basic research often leads to applications, it is also the case that applied research outcomes frequently have relevance for basic research, providing evidence that either supports or refutes theories.

. Besides providing increased control, researchers often prefer the laboratory to the field because of researchers' concerns with informed consent and privacy. In laboratory research, it is relatively easy to stick closely to the ethics code.

In the field, however, it is difficult, and usually impossible, to provide informed consent and debriefing; in fact, in some situations, the research procedures themselves might be considered an invasion of privacy. Consequently, field studies can face a greater challenge from an IRB, and field researchers must show the importance of their study justifies the risks involved

Social psychologist Elliot Aronson (2007), for example, made a distinction between mundane and experimental realism.

It is the experimental realism of the study that counts, according to Aronson. If participants are involved in the study and taking it seriously, then the researcher can draw valid conclusions about behavior.

One famous historical example of observations leading to research comes from the social psychological research on helping behavior, which developed out of several well‐publicized cases of failure to help. Most notable among them was the Kitty Genovese case in 1964, in which a woman was attacked several times and eventually murdered in New York City, in full view of at least 38 witnesses in nearby apartments, none of whom even made an anonymous call to police. As John Darley, one of the leading researchers in the area of altruism and helping behavior, recalled later:

Kitty Genovese

Dutton and Aron (1974)

Lab and field research can also co-exist to study a particular phenomenon

Experiment

Manipulation of one factor while holding all other factors constant

Also, measurements of psychological phenomena are imperfect, so a failed experiment could be the result of measurement error (more on this concept in Chapter 4). Consequently, any one study that fails to come out as one hopes seldom calls a theory into question. If results repeatedly fail to support the theory, however, especially if they occur in different laboratories, confidence in the theory begins to lessen and it may be discarded or, more likely, altered.

Note that in the above two paragraphs we have deliberately avoided statements like "a successful research outcome proves a theory to be true" and "a bad result disproves a theory." This is because scientists don't use the words prove and disprove when discussing theories and data. The use of the term prove implies 100% truth, but scientists can never be 100% certain their results are true. If a study comes out as expected, that outcome supports but cannot prove a theory, for the simple reason that future studies could potentially come out in a way that fails to support the theory. Similarly, if a study fails to come out as hoped, that outcome cannot disprove a theory since future research might support it. Furthermore, the study itself might be flawed or a poor test of the hypothesis. Remember that science is an ongoing endeavor; theories rise and fall over time as the result of an accumulated body of knowledge that results from lots of research. This complex relationship between theory and data

pilot study

Pilot studies are often used to test aspects of the procedure to be sure the methodology is sound.

Research in psychology can be classified along several dimensions. Psychological scientists strive to achieve the four research goals described in Chapter 1: description, prediction, explanation, and application,

Research can be classified in terms of its goals, setting, and type of data collected. We will make the distinctions between the following varieties of research: (a) basic or applied research, (b) laboratory or field research, and (c) quantitative or qualitative research.

Extraneous Variables

Rival Hypotheses

Cognitive Dissonance

The essence of the theory is the proposal that whenever people hold two opposing cognitions at the same time, a state of discomfort, is an example of what psychologists refer to as a construct.

Basic → a dichotic listening experiment that varied the message in the nonattended ear. Applied → an experiment on how cell phone use while driving affects driving.

The experimental setting would not be encountered in real life (mundane reality), but subjects were deeply involved in the procedure and took it seriously (experimental reality).

Lloyd Morgan's "Canon"

The idea of using parsimonious explanations is essentially the same as an argument used when discussing animal behavior by the 19th‐century British comparative psychologist Conwy Lloyd Morgan. He lived at a time when the theory of evolution was prompting naturalists to look for evidence of sophisticated mental processes in animals (such as mathematical ability in horses like Clever Hans), hence supporting the Darwinian notion of continuity among species. This search produced a number of excessive claims, especially by Darwin's protégée George Romanes, whose Animal Intelligence (1886) relied heavily on anecdotal evidence to support his case. His examples were also excessively anthropomorphic, meaning that he was overly generous in assigning human attributes to animals. He argued, for instance, that moths approach candles because they are curious, that beavers show foresight and engineering ability in their dam‐building activities, and that dogs were capable of logical inference. To support this latter point, he used this anecdote, sent to him by Dr. David Livingston (a famous explorer of Africa): While applauding Romanes for providing a wealth of interesting examples of animal behavior, Morgan rejected the anthropomorphic explanations. While not ruling out the idea of consciousness and mental ability in animals, Morgan argued that behavior should be explained in the simplest terms possible, yet still be sufficient to explain the behavior. His famous statement, which has come to be known as "Lloyd Morgan's Canon," was that "[i]n no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale" (Morgan, 1903, p. 53). Concerning Livingstone's dog anecdote, for instance, Morgan would argue that the dog moving quickly down path C does not allow one to eliminate the sense of smell as the essential explanation for the dog's behavior. Given the exceptional olfactory capabilities of dogs, sense of smell is a more parsimonious explanation than logical inference, regardless of how quickly the dog ran down path C.

Willard Small - rat maze

The story is a good illustration of scientific creativity. Scientists (Kline and Small) knowledgeable in some research area (animal behavior) were wrestling with a difficult problem (how to study home finding in the rat). An offhand comment (Kline's recollection of rats tunneling under a porch) combined serendipitously with Sanford's familiarity with the Hampton Court maze produced a link between seemingly unrelated events, and the problem was solved—the way to study a rat's home‐finding tendencies was to create an apparatus modeled on a famous maze in England. It is worth noting that a thorough knowledge of one's field may be a prerequisite to creative thinking in science, but the blade is double‐edged. Such knowledge can also create rigid patterns of thinking that inhibit creativity. Scientists occasionally become so accustomed to a particular method or so comfortable with a particular theory that they fail to consider alternatives, thereby reducing the chances of making new discoveries. Consider maze learning again. The maze has contributed a great deal to our understanding of basic learning processes; however, the apparatus has also led to many dead ends, so to speak. Once established as a standard apparatus, the maze occasionally hindered creativity, leading researchers to narrow the focus of their work to situations that were relevant to mazes but to little else. The phenomenon of "centrifugal swing" is an example. Investigated heavily in the 1920s and 1930s, it was said to be a tendency for an animal to emerge from one turn in a maze (presumably at high speed) and swing by centrifugal force to the far wall. This would then influence the direction of its next turn. This swing was contrasted with a "forward‐moving tendency." Dozens of studies attempted to tease out the factors that would produce either a swing or a forward move (e.g., Schneirla, 1929). The studies were elegantly designed and they no doubt helped develop the research skills of a number of experimental psychologists, but the research had no importance beyond the maze apparatus itself and shed no light on basic learning processes.

manipulation check

This procedure is often used to be sure the intended manipulations in a study have the desired effect. I

Theory

a set of logically consistent statements about some phenomenon that (a) best summarizes existing empirical knowledge of the phenomenon, (b) organizes this knowledge in the form of precise statements of relationships among variables (i.e., laws) (c) proposes an explanation for the phenomenon (d) serves as the basis for making predictions. These predictions are then tested with research. A theory is considered to be a working truth, always subject to revision pending the outcome of empirical studies Theories in psychology differ in scope. Some cover broad expanses of behavior and are general theories—Erik Erikson's famous stage theory of how personality is developed and operates over the life span is an example. theory is more focused on a specific aspect of behavior. Theories also differ in level of precision, with some being stated in strict mathematical terms and others described more simply as a set of logically connected statements.

Empirical Questions

all research begins with asking a question

Lab Studies

allows the researcher greater control; conditions of the study can be specified more precisely, and participants can be selected and placed in the different conditions of the study more systematically - Laboratory research is sometimes criticized for seeming to be "artificial" and far removed from everyday life. - clear that laboratory research has yielded important knowledge about behavior, and a case can be made that there are more important considerations when judging the quality of research than mere correspondence to daily living

Applied Research

bc direct and immediate relevance to the solution of real‐world problems - An applied study on attention might examine the limits of attention for a real‐world task with important practical implications—using a cell phone while driving a car, for example. This activity is clearly a problem, with some surveys showing at least 85% of drivers report using their phone while driving

Converging Operations

converge (converging operations) on the same general conclusion about behavior (e.g., frustration leads to aggression).

Anderson 1999

field and lab results on aggression correspond highly

productivity

good theories advance knowledge by generating a great deal of research, an attribute that clearly can be applied to dissonance theory. Hundreds of studies have been done over the years. Two other attributes of good theories, falsification and parsimony, require elaboration.

parsimonious

good theories are also parsimonious. This means, ideally, that they include the minimum number of constructs and assumptions needed to explain the phenomenon adequately and predict future research outcomes. If two theories are equal in every way except that one is more parsimonious, then the simpler one is generally preferred.

induction

is the logical process of reasoning from specific events (the results of individual research studies) to the general (the theory).

translational research

merging of basic and applied research

Replication and extension

new ideas come from replicating previous work

Serendipity

or discovering something while looking for something else entirely, has been a source of numerous important events in the history of science. It can happen when a scientist is wrestling with a difficult research problem and a chance event accidentally provides the key, or it might occur when something goes wrong in an experiment, such as an apparatus failure. Skinner's experience with extinction curves following an apparatus breakdown, described in Chapter 1, is a good example of a serendipitous event. Another involves the accidental discovery of feature detectors in the brain. To examine the origins of some research that led eventually to a Nobel Prize for David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel, Serendipity is the act of discovering something by accident; serendipitous events often yield ideas for further research. The discovery of edge detectors in vision is an example.

Operational Definitions importance

psychology has many constructs