Chapter 2: How Social Psychologists Do Research

Social Psychologists use 3 types of methods:

1. The Observational Method 2. The Correlational Method 3. The Experimental Method

Hindsight Bias

After people know something has occurred, we have the tendency to exaggerate how much we could have predicted it before it occurred.

APA

American Psychological Association. "Selected Ethical Principles of Psychologists in the Conduct of Research"

Define Ethnography

An example of observational learning. Ethnography is the method by which researchers attempt to understand a group or culture by observing it from the inside, without imposing any preconceived notions they might have. Upshot: The key to ethnography is to avoid imposing one's preconceived notions on the group and to try to understand the point of view of the people being studied.

Archival Analysis

An example of observational learning. The researcher can examine the accumulated documents (or archives) of a culture through a technique known as archival analysis. For example, diaries, novels, suicide notes, music lyrics, television shows, movies, magazine and news articles, advertising, social media, and the ways in which people use the internet all tell us a great about human behavior.

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Any institution (such as a university) that seeks federal funding for psychological research is required to have an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that reviews research before it is conducted. The board, which must include at least one scientist, one nonscientist, and one person who is not affiliated with the institution, reviews all research proposals and decides whether the procedures meet ethical guidelines.

Social Neuroscience

As we have seen, social psychology is concerned with how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the real or imagined presence of other people. Most research studies in social psychology, then, study just that—thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Human beings are biological organisms, however, and social psychologists have become increasingly interested in the connection between biological processes and social behavior. These interests include the study of hormones and behavior, the human immune system, and neurological processes in the human brain. To study the brain and its relation to behavior, psychologists use sophisticated technologies, including electroencephalography (EEG), in which electrodes are placed on the scalp to measure electrical activity in the brain, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), in which people are placed in scanners that measure changes in blood flow in their brains. Social psychologists take these measurements while participants think about and process social information, allowing them to correlate different kinds of brain activity with social information processing. This kind of research promises to open up a whole new area of inquiry into the relationship of the brain to behavior.

Independent and Dependent Variables

As with any experiment, they needed to vary the critical aspect of the situation that they thought would have a causal effect, in their case the number of people who witnessed an emergency. This is called the independent variables , which is the variable a researcher changes or varies to see if it has an effect on some other variable. The researcher then observes whether the independent variable (e.g., the number of bystanders) has the predicted effect on the outcome of interest, namely the dependent variable, which is the variable a researcher measures to see if it is influenced by the independent variable—in this case whether people help in an emergency.

Basic vs. Applied Research

Basic Research: To find the best answer to the question of why people behave as they do, purely for reasons of intellectual curiosity. The researchers aren't trying to solve a specific social or psychological problem. Applied Research: Is geared toward solving a particular social problem. Here, building a theory of behavior is usually secondary to solving the specific problem, such as alleviating racism, reducing sexual violence, or stemming the spread of AIDS.

Deception in Social Psychology

Deception in social psychological research involves misleading participants about the true purpose of a study or the events that transpire. Psychologists use deception only if it is the only way in which they can test a hypothesis about social behavior.

External Validity in Experiments

External validity is the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other situations and other people. Upshot: Note that two kinds of generalizability are at issue: 1. The extent to which we can generalize from the situation constructed by an experimenter to real-life situations (referred to as generalizability across situations). 2. The extent to which we can generalize from the people who participated in the particular experiment to people in general (referred to as generalizability across people).

The Experimental Method

Focus: Causality Question Answered: Is variable X a cause of Variable Y?

The Observational Method

Focus: Description Question Answered: What is the nature of the phenomenon? Textbook Definition: This is the technique whereby a researcher observes people and records measurements or impressions of their behavior.

The Correlational Method

Focus: Prediction Question Answered: From knowing X, can we predict Y?

The key to a good experiment is to maintain high ...

Internal Validity: making sure that the independent variable (and only the independent variable), influences the dependent variable. This is accomplished by controlling all extraneous variables and by randomly assigning people to different experimental conditions. When internal validity is high, the experimenter is in a position to judge whether the independent variable causes the dependent variable.

Internal Validity

Keeping everything but the independent variable the same in an experiment is referred to as internal validity (all extraneous variables controlled, people randomly assigned to the conditions).

Social Psychology: An Empirical Science

LO 2.1: Describe how researchers develop hypotheses and theories

Research Designs

LO 2.2 Compare the strengths and weaknesses of various research designs that social psychologists use

New Frontiers in Social Psychology Research

LO 2.3: Explain the impact cross-cultural studies and social neuroscience research have on the way in which scientists investigate social behavior.

Ethical Issues in Social Psychology

LO 2.4: Summarize how social psychologists ensure the safety and welfare of their research participants, while at the same time testing hypotheses about the causes of social behavior

Studies discussed in my Social Psychology book

Most of the findings you will read about in this book have been replicated in several different settings, with different populations; we know, then, that they are reliable phenomena, not limited to the laboratory or to college sophomores.

Social Psychology's Motto

Most social psychologists would agree that, to solve a specific social problem, we must understand the psychological processes responsible for it. Indeed, Kurt Lewin (1951), one of the founders of social psychology, coined a phrase that has become a motto for the field: "There is nothing so practical as a good theory" (p. 169). He meant that to solve such difficult social problems as urban violence or racial prejudice, one must first understand the underlying psychological dynamics of human nature and social interaction. Even when the goal is to discover the psychological processes underlying social behavior, the findings often have clear applied implications, as you'll see throughout this book. For example, basic research on how people understand and construe the world has been translated into successful attempts to address many problems, including closing the achievement gap in education, reducing prejudice, reducing teenage pregnancies, and lowering the rate of child abuse.

Which method can answer causal questions?

ONLY the experimental method can answer causal questions.

Field Experiments

One of the best ways to increase external validity is by conducting field experiments. In a field experiment, researchers study behavior outside the laboratory, in its natural setting. A field experiment has the same design as a laboratory experiment, except that it is conducted in a real-life setting rather than in the relatively artificial setting of the laboratory. The participants in a field experiment are unaware that the events they experience are in fact an experiment. The external validity of such an experiment is high, because, after all, it is taking place in the real world, with real people who are more diverse than a typical college student sample.

Random Assignment to Condition

Random Assignment to Condition is a technique that allows experimenters to minimize differences among participants as the cause of the results. Such factors outside of the realm of the independent variable can be randomly (i.e., roughly evenly) dispersed across experimental conditions.

A trade-off: External and Internal Validity

Real life can best be captured by doing a field experiment, but it is very difficult to control all extraneous variables in such studies. Upshot: There is almost always a trade-off between internal and external validity—that is, between being able to randomly assign people to conditions and having enough control over the situation to ensure that no extraneous variables are influencing the results, and making sure that the results can be generalized to everyday life.

Replications and Meta-Analysis

Replications are the ultimate test of an experiment's external validity. Only by conducting studies in different settings, with different populations, can we determine how generalizable the results are. Often, though, when many studies on one problem are conducted, the results are somewhat variable. Fortunately, there is a statistical technique called meta-analysis that averages the results of two or more studies to see if the effect of an independent variable is reliable. Earlier we discussed p-values, which tell us the probability that the findings of one study are due to chance or to the independent variable. A meta-analysis essentially does the same thing, except that it averages the results of many different studies. If, say, an independent variable is found to have an effect in only 1 of 20 studies, the meta-analysis will tell us that that one study was probably an exception and that, on average, the independent variable is not influencing the dependent variable. If an independent variable is having an effect in most of the studies, the meta-analysis is likely to tell us that, on average, it does influence the dependent variable.

The Correlation Coefficient

Researchers look at relationships between variables by calculating the correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient is a statistic that assesses how well you can predict one variable from another. For example, how well you can predict people's weight from their height. A correlation coefficient can range from -1 to +1.

Surveys

The correlational method is often used to analyze the results of surveys, research in which a representative sample of people are asked questions about their attitudes or behavior. Surveys are a convenient way to measure people's attitudes. Pros of Surveys: 1. Surveys have a number of advantages, one which is allowing researchers to judge the relationship between variables that are difficult to observe, such as how often people engage in safer sex. Another advantage is the ability to sample representative segments of the population. The best way to do this is to use a random selection of people from the population at large, which is a way of ensuring that a sample of people is representative of a population by giving everyone in the population an equal chance of being selected for the sample. Cons of Surveys: 1. Modern political polls, for example, are not immune from sampling error (such as undercoverage). 2. Another problem with survey data is the accuracy of the responses. Often, people simply don't know the answer - but they think they do. Nisbett and Wilson (1977) demonstrated this "telling more than you can know" phenomenon in a number of studies in which people often made inaccurate reports about why they responded the way they did. Their reports about the causes of their responses pertained more to their theories and beliefs about what should have influenced them than to what actually influenced them.

The Experimental Method: Answering Causal Questions

The experimental method is the method of choice in most social psychological research, because it allows the experimenter to make causal inferences.

Probability level (p-value)

The p-value tells us how confident we can be that the difference was due to chance rather than the independent variable. Upshot: The analyses of our data come with a probability level (i.e. p-value). The p-value is a number calculated by statistical techniques that tells researchers how likely it is that the results of their experiment occurred by chance and not because of the independent variable. The convention in science is to consider results significant (trustworthy) if the probability level is less than 5 in 100 that the results might be due to chance factors rather than the independent variables studied.

the basic dilemma of the social psychologist

The trade-off between internal and external validity.

How do social psychologists formulate hypotheses and theories?

They are inspired by previous theories and research, they disagree with a previous researchers' interpretations of his or her study, they construct hypotheses and theories based on personal observations in everyday life.

Informed Consent: Solving the Ethical Dilemma

To obtain informed consent, the researcher explains the nature of the experiment to participants before it begins and asks for their permission to participate. If participants are made fully aware of the kinds of experiences they are about to undergo and state that they are willing to participate, the ethical dilemma is resolved.

Cross-cultural Research

To study the effects of culture on social psychological processes, social psychologists conduct cross-cultural research. Researchers have to guard against imposing their own viewpoints and definitions, learned from their culture, onto another culture with which they are unfamiliar. As more and more cross-cultural research is conducted carefully, we will be able to determine which social psychological processes are universal and which are culture-bound.

Debriefing Session

When deception is used in a study, the postexperimental interview, called the debriefing session, is crucial. Debriefing is the process of explaining to the participants, at the end of an experiment, the true purpose of the study and exactly what transpired.

Psychological realism

When it comes to generalizability across situations, research in social psychology is sometimes criticized for being conducted in artificial settings that cannot be generalized to real life - for example psychological experiments at a university.

Limits of the Correlational Method: Correlation Does Not Equal Causation

When using the correlational method, it is wrong to jump to the conclusion that one variable is causing the other to occur. Correlation does not prove causation.

The Correlational Method: Predicting Social Behavior

With the correlational method, two variables are systematically measured, and the relationship between them - how much you can predict one from the other - is assessed. People's behavior and attitudes can be measured in a variety of ways. Just as with the observational method, researchers sometimes make direct observations of people's behavior.