Chapter 1 research intro to scientific method

Null hypothesis vs alternative

Null hypothesis (Ho): Status quo there is no difference vs Alternate hypothesis (H1): There is an effect/difference:

Methods of tenacity

(Nonscientific approach) involves holding on to ideas and beliefs simply because they have been accepted as facts for a long time information is accepted as true bc it has always been believed or bc superstition supports it

Specific Limitation of logical reasoning

- the conclusion is not necessarily true unless both of the premise statements are true, even in a valid logical argument - one problem comes from the universal assumption expressed in the first premise statement although the statement might be accurate from many people who have had a bad experience, there is good reason to doubt it is true to all people. -in general the truth of any logical conclusion is founded on the truth of the premise statements. If any basic assumption or premise if incorrect then we cannot have any confidence in the truth of the logical conclusion - people are not good at logical reasoning - the simple fact I'd that most people have difficulty judging the validity of a logical argument means they can easily make mistakes using the rational method unless the logical conclusion is sound the conclusion might not be correct - in summary the rational method is the practice of employing reason as a source of knowledge. Answers obtained using the rational are not simply accepted as true without verification. Instead, all conclusions are tested by ensuring that they conform to the rules of logic bc the rational method does not involve directly observing or actively gathering information it has been said that logic is a way of establishing truth in the absence of evidence

Step 4: Evaluate the Prediction by Making Systematic, Planned Observations

-After a specific, testable prediction has been made (the rational method), the next step is to evaluate the prediction using direct observation (the empirical method). This is the actual research or data collection phase of the scientific method. The goal is to provide a fair and unbiased test of the research hypothesis by observing whether the prediction is correct. The researcher must be careful to observe and record exactly what happens, free of any subjective interpretation or personal expectations. -The scientific method is a method of acquiring knowledge that uses observations to develop a hypothesis, and then uses the hypothesis to make logical predictions that can be empirically tested by making additional, systematic observations. - Typically, the new observations lead to a new hypothesis, and the cycle continues.

In logical reasoning an argument is

A set of premise statements that are logically combined to yield a conclusion

Hypothesis

A statement that explains a potential relationship between variables; this is the prediction to be studied and assessed.

The method of tenacity, intuition, and authority are satisfactory for answering some questions especially...

If you need an answer quickly and there are no serious consequences for accepting a wrong answer

Step 5: Select a Research Strategy

-Choosing a research strategy involves deciding on the general approach you will take to evaluate your research hypothesis. - For example, the researchers in the pain and swearing study could have used a survey to determine public opinion about the effect of swearing on the experience of pain rather than using an experiment to measure pain in a laboratory. -The choice of a research strategy is usually determined by one of two factors: 1. The type of question asked: Consider, for example, the following two research questions: Is there a relationship between sugar consumption and activity level for preschool children? Will increasing the level of sugar consumption for preschool children cause an increase in their activity level? At first glance, it may appear that the two questions are actually the same. In terms of research, however, they are quite different. They will require different research studies and may produce different answers. Consider the following two questions: Is there a relationship between intelligence and income for 40-year-old men? Will increasing the salary for 40-year-old men cause an increase in their IQ scores? In this case, it should be clear that the two questions are not the same and may lead to different conclusions. -The type of question that you are asking can dictate the specific research strategy that you must use. 2. Ethics and other constraints: Often, ethical considerations or other factors, such as equipment availability, limit what you can or cannot do in the laboratory. These factors often can force you to choose one research strategy over another. For example, minor degrees of pain, such as putting a hand in ice water, can be administered to individuals in a study if they are informed in advance and agree to participate. More severe injuries, such as repeated concussions, cannot be administered in a laboratory but must be examined in real-world conditions where they exist naturally.

Step 2: Form a Hypothesis

-If your unanswered question simply asks for a description of a variable or variables, you can skip this step and go directly to Step 3 of the research process. -However, if your question concerns the relationship between variables, the next task is to form a hypothesis, or a tentative answer to the question. In the swearing and pain study, for example, the hypothesis was stated as follows: A painful stimulus will be perceived as less intense if you are cursing than if you are not cursing. -When you are selecting an answer to serve as your hypothesis, you should pick the answer that seems most likely to be correct. -Remember, the goal of the research study is to demonstrate that your answer (your hypothesis) is correct. -The likelihood of a hypothesis being correct is often based on previous research results. If similar research has demonstrated the importance of one specific variable, it is likely that the same variable will be important in your own study. -It is also possible that you can develop a logical argument supporting your hypothesis. If you can make a reasonable argument for your hypothesis, then it is likely that the hypothesis is correct.

Step 3: Determine How You Will Define and Measure Your Variables

-Later in the research process, the hypothesis will be evaluated in an empirical research study. --First, however, you must determine how you will define and measure your variables. -In the swearing and pain study, for example, the research hypothesis stated that swearing decreases the perceived intensity of pain. -This hypothesis predicts that the same painful stimulus will be perceived as less intense if you are cursing than if you are not cursing. -Before they could evaluate this prediction, they had to determine how they could distinguish between more pain and less pain. Specifically, they had to determine how they would define and measure "the perceived intensity of pain." -The researchers chose to use pain tolerance as their definition and measured how long each participant could tolerate the ice-water stimulus. -The variables identified in the research hypothesis must be defined in a manner that makes it possible to measure them by some form of empirical observation. -These decisions are usually made after reviewing previous research and determining how other researchers have defined and measured their variables. -By defining variables so that they can be observed and measured,researchers can transform the hypothesis (from Step 2 of the research process) into a specific research prediction that can be evaluated with empirical observations in a research study. For the pain and swearing study, the researcher prediction stated that participants would tolerate the ice- water stimulus for a longer time when swearing than when yelling neutral words. -Notice that this step is necessary before we can evaluate the hypothesis by actually observing the variables. -The key idea is to transform the hypothesis into an empirically testable form. -You should also realize that the task of determining exactly how the variables will be defined and measured often depends on the individuals to be measured. For example, you would certainly measure aggressive behavior for a group of preschool children very differently from aggressive behavior for a group of adults. -The task of defining and measuring variables is discussed in Chapter 3.

Rational methods: in this argument the first two sentences are -that is they are... -the final setence in a logical conclusion based on the premises. If the premise statements are in fact rue and the logic is sound then the conclusion is guaranteed to be correct. Thus the answers are obtained by the rational method must...

-Premise statements -facts or assumptions that are known (or assumed) to be true. -satisfy the standards established by the rules of logic before they are accepted as true

Step 5: Use the Observations to Support, Refute, or Refine the Original Hypothesis

-The final step of the scientific method is to compare the actual observations with the predictions that were made from the hypothesis. To what extent do the observations agree with the predictions? -Some agreement indicates support for the original hypothesis and suggests that you consider making new predictions and testing them. -Lack of agreement indicates that the original hypothesis was wrong or that the hypothesis was used incorrectly, producing faulty predictions. - In this case, you might want to revise the hypothesis or reconsider how it was used to generate predictions. In either case, notice that you have circled back to Step 2; that is, you are forming a new hypothesis and preparing to make new predictions. In the swearing study, for example, the researchers found greater pain tolerance (longer times) in the swearing condition than in the neutral-word condition, which supports the original hypothesis that swearing reduces the perceived intensity of pain. However, not all of the participants showed the same level of pain reduction. Some individuals were able to tolerate the ice-cold water for twice as long while swearing than while repeating a neutral word. For others, swearing resulted in little or no increase in pain tolerance. This result indicates that swearing is not the entire answer and other questions must be asked. For example, it is possible that people who swear routinely in their everyday lives do not get the same relief as people for whom swearing is a novel and emotionally stimulating act. Finally, we should note that if the results showed no difference in pain tolerance between the two conditions, then we would have to conclude that swearing does not affect the experience of pain. In this case, other factors must be considered, and other hypotheses must be tested. -Notice that the scientific method repeats the same series of steps over and over again. Observations lead to a hypothesis and a prediction, which lead to more observations, which lead to another hypothesis, and so on. - Thus, the scientific method is not a linear process that moves directly from a beginning to an end but rather is a circular process, or a spiral, that repeats over and over, moving higher with each cycle as new knowledge is gained (Figure 1.4) -As you know, when we say that science is empirical, we mean that answers are obtained by making observations. - Although preliminary answers or hypotheses may be obtained by other means, science requires empirical verification. - An answer may be "obvious" by common sense, it might be perfectly logical, and experts in the field might support it, but it is not scientifically accepted until it has been empirically demonstrated. -However, unlike the method of empiricism we previously examined, the scientific method involves structured or systematic observation. -The structure of the observations is determined by the procedures and techniques that are used in the research study. -More specifically, the purpose of the observations is to provide an empirical test of a hypothesis. -Therefore, the observations are structured so that the results either will provide clear support for the hypothesis or will clearly refute the hypothesis. Consider the following question: Do large doses of vitamin C prevent the common cold? To answer this question, it would not be sufficient simply to ask people if they take vitamin C routinely and how many colds they get in a typical season. These observations are not structured, and no matter what responses are obtained, the results will not neces- sarily provide an accurate answer to the question. In particular, we have made no attempt to determine the dosage levels of the vitamin C that individuals have taken. No attempt was made to verify that the illnesses reported were, in fact, the common cold and not some type of influenza, pneumonia, or other illness. No attempt was made to take into account the age, general health, or lifestyle of the people questioned (maybe people who take vitamin C tend to lead generally healthy lives). We have made no attempt to reduce the possible biasing effect of people's beliefs about vitamins and colds on the answers they gave us. We have made no attempt to compare people who are receiving a specified daily dose of the vitamin with those who are not taking vitamin C or are getting a phony pill (a placebo). We could elaborate further, but you get the general idea. -In the scientific method, the observations are systematic in that they are performed under a specified set of conditions so that we can accurately answer the question we are addressing. That is, the observations—and indeed the entire study—are structured to test a hypothesis about the way the world works. If you want to know if vitamin C can prevent colds, there is a way to structure your observations to get the answer. Much of this book deals with this aspect of research and how to structure studies to rule out competing and alternative explanations.

step 1 : observe behavior and other phenomena

-The scientific method often begins with casual or informal observations; It is also possible that your attention is caught by someone else's observations. For example, you might read a report of someone's research findings (the method of authority), or you might hear others talking about things they have seen or noticed. In any event, the observations catch your attention and begin to raise questions in your mind. -At this stage in the process, people commonly tend to generalize beyond the actual observations. - The process of generalization is an almost automatic human response known as induction, or inductive reasoning. In simple terms, inductive reasoning involves reaching a general conclusion based on a few specific examples. For example, suppose that you taste a green apple and discover that it is sour.A second green apple is also sour and so is the third. Soon, you reach the general conclusion that all green apples are sour. -Notice that inductive reasoning reaches far beyond the actual observations -The method is used to gain information, involving observations to develop a hypothesis, which then is used to make predictions that can be empirically tested to reach a logical conclusion. -Observations tend to help to create a new hypothesis.

Step 2: Form a Tentative Answer or Explanation (a Hypothesis)

-This step in the process usually begins by identifying other factors, or variables, that are associated with your observation -Variables are characteristics or conditions that change or have different values for different individuals. For example, the weather, the economy, and your state of health can change from day to day. -Also, two people can be different in terms The observed relationship between pain and swearing might be related to a variety of other variables. For example, pain can be sharp and temporary like a pinprick or long lasting like holding your hand in ice-cold water, and it can come from different sources (self-inflicted or from outside). Similarly, swearing can depend on the social environment (alone or in a crowded shopping mall) and probably is related to gender and personality. It also is possible that there is nothing unique about using obscenities; it may be that the simple act of yelling is enough to reduce the experience of pain. Any of these variables could influence the relationship between pain and swearing; Swearing in response to pain is more common when the pain is self-inflicted than when it comes from an external source. Swearing in response to pain is more acceptable and, therefore, more common when you are alone than when you are in a social environment. Swearing in response to pain is directly related to the intensity of the pain. -Next, you must select one of the explanations to be evaluated in a scientific research study. -Choose the explanation that you consider to be most plausible, or simply pick the one that you find most interesting. - Remember, the other explanations are not discarded. If necessary, they can be evaluated in later studies. The researchers in the actual study, however, were simply interested in the effect of swearing on the experience of pain and posed the general explanation: Swearing is a common response to pain because the act of swearing alters the experience and decreases the perceived intensity of pain. -At this point, you have a hypothesis, or a possible explanation, for your observation. Note that your hypothesis is not considered to be a final answer. -Instead, the hypothesis is a tentative answer that is intended to be tested and critically evaluated. -In the context of science, a hypothesis is a statement that describes or explains a relationship between or among variables. - A hypothesis is not a final answer but rather a proposal to be tested and evaluated. For example, a researcher might hypothesize that there is a relationship between personality characteristics and cigarette smoking. Or another researcher might hypothesize that a dark and dreary environment causes winter depression.

Step 4: Identify the Participants or Subjects for the Study, Decide How They Will Be Selected, and Plan for Their Ethical Treatment

-To evaluate a hypothesis scientifically, we first use the hypothesis to produce a specific prediction that can be observed and evaluated in a research study. - One part of designing the research study is to decide exactly what individuals will participate, determine how many individuals you will need for your research, and plan where and how to recruit them. If the individuals are human, they are called participants. Non-humans are called subjects. -At this point, it is the responsibility of the researcher to plan for the safety and well-being of the research participants and to inform them of all relevant aspects of the research, especially any risk or danger that may be involved. -Ethical considerations also include determining the procedure that you will use to recruit participants. -Finally, we should note that ethical considerations often interact with your choice of participants. -Specifically, ethics may influence your decision about which individuals to select -you must decide whether you will place any restrictions on the characteristics of the participants Be aware, however, that you are also defining limitations for generalizing the results of the study. -Notice that when you have completed Steps 3 and 4 you have created a specific research study that will test the original hypothesis from Step 2 of the research process. -Specifically, you have specified exactly how the variables will be defined and measured, made a research prediction, and described exactly who will be observed and measured. Ultimately, the research study will test the original hypothesis by actually making the observations.

Step 3: Use Your Hypothesis to Generate a Testable Prediction

-Usually, this step involves taking the hypothesis and applying it to a specific, observable, real-world situation. For a hypothesis stating that swearing reduces the experience of pain, one specific prediction is that participants should be less responsive to occasional painful stimuli (pinpricks or mild shocks) when they are swearing than when they are not swearing. An alternative prediction is that participants should have an increased tolerance for pain when they are swearing than when they are not swearing. -Notice that a single hypothesis can lead to several different predictions and that each prediction refers to a specific situation or an event that can be observed and measured. -we are using logic (rational method) to make the prediction. This time, the logical process is known as deduction or deductive reasoning. We begin with a general (universal) statement and then make specific deductions. In particular, we use our hypothesis as a universal premise statement and then determine the conclusions or predictions that must logically follow if the hypothesis is true. -Induction and deduction are complementary processes. Induction uses specific examples to generate general conclusions or hypotheses, and deduction uses general statements to generate specific predictions. This relationship is depicted in Figure 1.3. Deduction, or deductive reasoning, uses a general statement as the basis for reaching a conclusion about specific examples. -Also notice that the predictions generated from a hypothesis must be testable—that is, it must be possible to demonstrate that the prediction is either correct or incorrect by direct observation. Either the observations will provide support for the hypothesis or they will refute the hypothesis. For a prediction to be truly testable, both outcomes must be possible.

Ways to increase confidence in the info gained from method of authority

-You can evaluate the source of the information is the authority really an expert and is the info really within the authority's area of expertise? And is the info being received subjective or a fact? - does the info seem reasonable? Does it agree with other information that you already know? If you have any reason to doubt the info gained from authority the best movie is to get a subjective opinion. If 2 independent authorities provide the same answer you can be more confident that the answer is correct. - doe you have previous experiences with the site? Is it known to be reputable? Often if there is any doubt it pays to check to see that other sites are providing the same info

Issues with method of tenacity

-info acquired may not be accurate and there is no method for correcting erroneous ideas -habits leave us to continue believeing something we have always believed; belief perseverance ex cliches such as opposites attract

Why the Scientific Method?

1. Hindsight bias - Once a behavior has occurred or the explanation is provided it seems obvious... • Of course certain intuitions turn out to be true - Ex: Love makes us happy...Turns out to be true *BUT* • Some intuitions and common sense ideas are wrong! - E.g. gamblers fallacy 2. Overconfidence - E.g. How long will it take you to write that paper? - Tend to think we know more than we do - "The better than average effect" 3. Confirmation Bias We tend to want to confirm thingsàBUT Science is set up when we try to DISCONFIRM

Although there is no universally accepted definition of pseudoscience, there is a common set of features that differentiates science and pseudoscience (Herbert et al., 2000; Lilienfeld, Lynn, & Lohr, 2004). The following list presents some of the more important differences.

1. The primary distinction between science and pseudoscience is based on the notion of testable and refutable hypotheses. Specifically, a theory is scientific only if it can specify how it could be refuted. That is, the theory must be able to describe exactly what observable findings would demonstrate that it is wrong. If a research study produces results that do not support a theory, the theory is either abandoned or, more commonly, modified to accommodate the new results. In either case, however, the negative results are acknowledged and accepted. In pseudoscience, on the other hand, the typical response to negative results is to discount them entirely or to explain them away without altering the original theory. For example, if research demonstrates that a particular therapy is not effective, the proponents of the therapy often claim that the failure was caused by a lack of conviction or skill on the part of the therapist—the therapy is fine; it was simply the application that was flawed. 2. Science demands an objective and unbiased evaluation of all the available evidence. Unless a treatment shows consistent success that cannot be explained by other outside factors, the treatment is not considered to be effective. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, tends to rely on subjective evidence such as testimonials and anecdotal reports of success. Pseudoscience also tends to focus on a few selected examples of success and to ignore instances of failure. In clinical practice, nearly any treatment shows occasional success, but handpicking reports that demonstrate success does not provide convincing evidence for an effective treatment. 3. Science actively tests and challenges its own theories and adapts the theories when new evidence appears. As a result, scientific theories are constantly evolving. Pseudoscience, on the other hand, tends to ignore nonsupporting evidence and treats criticism as a personal attack. As a result, pseudo-scientific theories tend to be stagnant and remain unchanged year after year. 4. Finally, scientific theories are grounded in past science. A scientific system for teaching communication skills to autistic children is based on established theories of learning and uses principles that have solid empirical support. Pseudoscience tendsto create entirely new disciplines and techniques that are unconnected to established theories and empirical evidence. Proponents of such theories often develop their own vaguely scientific jargon or describe links to science that suggest scientific legitimacy without any real substance. Aromatherapy, for example, is sometimes explained by noting that smells activate olfactory nerves, which stimulate the limbic system, which releases endorphins and neurotransmitters. Thus, smells affect your mind and emotions. Note that a similar argument could be used to justify a claim that clinical benefits are produced by looking at colored lights or listening to a bouncing tennis ball.

The scientific method consists of five steps:

: (1) observation of behavior or other phenomena; (2) formation of a tentative answer or explanation, called a hypothesis; (3) utilization of the hypothesis to generate a testable prediction; (4) evaluation of the prediction by making systematic, planned observations; and (5) utilization of the observations to support, refute, or refine the original hypothesis.

Subjects

A nonhuman participant in a research study

Method of faith + issues

A variant of the method of authority in which people have unquestioning trust in the authority figure and therefore accept information from the authority without doubt or challenge - common in religion towards a sacred text or children towards their parents issues: - there is no way to test the accuracy of the information and not all experts are experts

Methods of acquiring knowledge

Are ways in which a person can know things to discover answers to questions; different ways that people know, or the methods that people use to discover answers

In logical reasoning premise statements describe

Facts or assumptions that are presumed to be true

Step 7: Conduct the Study

Finally, you are ready to collect the data. But now you must decide whether the study will be conducted in a laboratory or in the field (in the real world). Will you observe the participants individually or in groups? In addition, you must now implement all your earlier decisions about manipulating, observing, measuring, controlling, and recording the different aspects of your study.

Design Study...What's available??

GOAL:Description METHOD: Descriptive methods Naturalistic Observation Laboratory Observation Case Study GOAL: Prediction METHOD: Correlational method (Often Survey, Quasi- experimental methods) GOAL: Explanation METHOD: Experiments (causal statements)

hypothesis basics

Hypothesis • Statement (Prediction) about the relationship between 2 variables - Must be testable - Must be refutable • We can find evidence to support a hypothesisà CAN *NEVER* prove it! • • Why? BC tomorrow someone may disprove it...But we can disprove it (only takes 1 time to disprove) - Indeed best support is to try and DISPROVE and if you cant....then you have good evidence!

Methods of authority + issues

In the method of authority a person relies on info or answers from an expert in the subject area -relying on experts in a subject for answers issues: -authorities may provide accurate info does not always provide accurate info -authorities may have a bias/source is often bias -answers obtained from expert could represent subjective personal opinion not actual knowledge -we assume knowledge on one topic can be generalized -people often accept these answers without question as a result false info can be taken as truth -when one accepts the word of authority and has complete trust in the authority figure . The method is often called method of faith is this situation

Participants

Individuals(if human) who participate in research studies.

Methods of intuition and issues w it

Info accepted as true bc it feels right , includes finding info or an answer to be true based on s good feeling or intuition -often the quickest way to obtain answers when we have no other option meaning we have no info and cannot refer to supporting data or use rational justification -probably partly based off subtle cues from the environment -issues with this method of intuition is that it has no mechanism for separating accurate from innaccurate knowledge

Limitations of empirical method

May be misconceptions about what we're see feel or hear. The way we percept things can be changed by prior experience, feelings, or beliefs. - it is fairly common for people to misperceive or misinterpret the world around them, although direct observation seems to be simple way to obtain answers your perception can be altered by expectations, feelings, beliefs etc. as a result 2 observers can witness exactly the same event but see different things -it is also possible to make accurate observations but misinterpret what you see - finally the empirical method is usually, Finally, the empirical method is usually time consuming and sometimes dangerous. When faced with a problem, for example, you could use the empirical method to try several possible solutions, or you could use the rational method and simply think about each possibility and how it might work. Often, it is faster and easier to think through a problem than to jump in with a trial-and-error approach. Also, it might be safer to use the rational method or the method of authority rather than experience something for yourself. For example, if I wanted to determine whether the mushrooms in my backyard are safe or poisonous, I would rather ask an expert than try the empirical method. -In summary, the empirical method is the practice of employing direct observation as a source of knowledge. In the empirical method, evidence or observations with one's senses are required for verification of information. Note that the observations can be casual and unplanned, such as when you are simply aware of the world around you. At the other end of the continuum, observations can be systematic and purposeful. As you will see in the next section, the planned and systematic application of the empirical method is a critical component of the scientific method.

summary of nonscientific approaches

Method: Way of Knowing or Finding answers Tenacity- From habit or superstition Intuition-From a hunch or feeling Authority-From an expert Rationalism-From reasoning; a logical conclusion Empiricism-From direct sensory observation

Step 10: Refine or Reformulate Your Research Idea

Most research studies generate more questions than they answer. If your results support your original hypothesis, it does not mean that you have found a final answer. Instead, the new information from your study simply means that it is now possible to extend your original question into new domains or make the research question more precise. Typically, results that support a hypothesis lead to new questions by one of the following two routes: Test the boundaries of the result: Suppose your study demonstrates that higher levels of academic performance are related to higher levels of self-esteem for elementary school children. Will this same result be found for adolescents in middle school? Perhaps adolescents are less concerned about respect from their parents and teachers and are more concerned about respect from peers. If adolescents do not value academic success then you would not expect academic success to be related to their self-esteem. Alternatively, you might want to investigate the relationship between self-esteem and success outside academics. Is there a relationship between success on the athletic field and self-esteem? Notice that the goal is to determine whether your result extends into other areas. How general are the results of your study? Refine the original research question: If your results show a relationship between academic success and self-esteem, the next question is, "What causes the relationship?" That is, what is the underlying mechanism by which success in school translates into higher self-esteem? The original question asked, "Does a relationship exist?" Now you are asking, "Why does the relationship exist?"Results that do not support your hypothesis also generate new questions. One explanation for negative results (results that do not support the hypothesis) is that one of the premises is wrong. Remember, for this example, we assumed that academic success is highly valued and respected. Perhaps this is not true. Your new research question might be, "How important is academic success to parents, to teachers, or to elementary school students?" Notice that research is not a linear, start-to-finish process. Instead, the process is a spiral or a circle that keeps returning to a new hypothesis to start over again. The never- ending process of asking questions, gathering evidence, and asking new questions is part of the general scientific method. One characteristic of the scientific method is that it always produces tentative answers or tentative explanations. There are no final answers. Consider, for example, the theory of evolution: After years of gathering evidence, evolution is still called a "theory." No matter how much supporting evidence is obtained, the answer to a research question is always open to challenge and eventually may be revised or refuted.

What kind of biases and beliefs are likely to be involved?

Often, bias comes from belief in a particular theory. A researcher might try to find evidence to support a specific theory and may have expectations about the outcome of the study. In some cases, expectations can subtly influence the findings.

Step 8: Evaluate the Data

Once the data have been collected, you must use various statistical methods to examine and evaluate the data. This involves drawing graphs, computing means or correlations to describe your data, and using inferential statistics to help determine whether the results from your specific participants can be generalized to the rest of the population.

Step 9: Report the Results

One important aspect of the scientific method is that observations and results must be public. This is accomplished, in part, by a written report describing what was done, what was found, and how the findings were interpreted. In Chapter 16, we review the standard style and procedures for writing research reports. Two reasons to report research results are: (1) the results become part of the general knowledge base that other people can use to answer questions or to generate new research ideas, and (2) the research procedure can be replicated or refuted by other researchers.

Rational method or rationalism

Seeks answers by the use of logical reasoning. We begin with a set of know facts or assumptions and use logic to reach a conclusion or get answer to a question

Step 6: Select a Research Design

Selecting a research design involves making decisions about the specific methods and procedures you will use to conduct the research study. Does your research question call for the detailed examination of one individual, or would you find a better answer by looking at the average behavior of a large group? Should you observe one group of individuals as they experience a series of different treatment conditions, or should you observe a different group of individuals for each of the different treatments? Should you make a series of observations of the same individuals over a period of time, or should you compare the behaviors of different individuals at the same time? Answering these questions will help you determine a specific design for the study.

Scientific method

The scientific method is an approach to acquiring knowledge that involves formulating specific questions and then systematically finding answers. The scientific method contains many elements of the methods previously discussed

Hypothesis Testing

Set up such that there are 2 competing "answers" - that there is a "difference" or that there is "no difference" Set up such that there are 2 competing "answers" - that there is a "difference" or that there is "no difference" - Null hypothesis (Ho): Status quo there is no difference: e.g. Students who have work experience do NO better in college than those who do. - Alternate hypothesis (H1): There is an effect/difference: e.g. "Students who have work experience do better in college than those who do not" - We assume null to be true unless the data is strong enough to suggest otherwise....

the steps of the research process: step 1

Step 1: Find a Research Idea: Select a Topic and Search the Literature to Find an Unanswered Question -The first step in the research process is to find a research idea. This task, discussed in detail in Chapter 2, typically involves two parts: -Selecting a general topic area (such as human development, perception, and social interaction). -Reviewing the published research reports in that area to identify the relevant variables and find an unanswered question. You may decide, for example, that you are interested in the topic of obesity and want to examine the variables that contribute to overeating. Ideas for topics can come from a variety of sources including everyday experience, books, journal articles, or class work. -It is important that a researcher be honestly interested in the chosen topic. The research process can be a long-term, demanding enterprise. -Without intrinsic interest to sustain motivation, it is very easy for a researcher to get tired or bored and give up before the research is completed. -Bear in mind that your general topic is simply a starting point that eventually will evolve into a very specific idea for a research study. -Your final research idea will develop as you read through the research literature and discover what other researchers have already learned. -Your original topic area will guide you through the literature and help you to decide which research studies are important to you and which are not relevant to your interests. -Eventually, you will become familiar with the current state of knowledge and can determine which questions are still unanswered. At this stage, you will be ready to identify your own research question. In Chapter 2, we discuss the task of searching through the research literature to find a question for a research study. -As you become familiar with an area of research, you will learn the different variables that are being investigated and get some ideas about how those variables are related to each other. -At this point, you should be looking for an unanswered research question. -Occasionally, finding an unanswered question is very easy. Published research reports often include suggestions for future research or identify limitations of the studies they are reporting. -You are welcome to follow the suggestions or try to correct the limitations in your own research. -More often, however, the unanswered question is the result of critical reading. -As you read a research report, ask yourself why the study was done a certain way. If the study only used participants from middle-class families, perhaps the researchers suspected that family income might influence the results. - Ask what might happen if some characteristics of the study were changed. For example, if the study examined eating behavior in restaurants, would the same results apply to eating at home? -In some situations, the research question may simply ask for a description of an individual variable or variables. For example, a researcher might be interested in the sleeping habits of college students. How much sleep do college students typically get? What time do they get up each day? -More often, however, the research question concerns a relationship between two or more variables. For example, a researcher may want to know whether there is a relationship between portion size and the amount of food that people eat. Does serving larger portions cause an increase in food consumption?

Notice that the rational method begins after the premise statements have been presented. Limitations are...

That the conclusion may not be correct unless both of the premise statements are true and that people are not proficient in logical reasoning

the process

The Process • Idea, Identification of Problem • Hypothesis • Design Study • Collect Data • Analyze data • Communicating Results

5 non scientific approaches

The method of tenacity the method of intuition method of authority rational method the method of empiricism

Variables

They are the conditions, factors, and characteristics that change or are different in value for different individuals

Deduction or deductive reasoning

This method uses a general assertion as the basis for reaching answers about specific examples. Involves making specific deductions to universal claims to reach a particular conclusion

Induction or inductive reasoning

This method uses a set of specific observations as a building block to form a broad statement about a set of feasible observations. This method uses specific examples to reach general conclusions. Induction, or inductive reasoning, involves using a relatively small set of specific observations as the basis for forming a general statement about a larger set of possible observations.

Empirical method or empiricism

Uses observation or direct sensory experience to obtain knowledge; -this method uses observation and experience to answer questions or gain knowledge. - attempts to answer questions by direct observation or personal experience

Pseudoscience is

a system of ideas often presented as science but actually lacking some of the key components that are essential to scientific research. -Theories such as aromatherapy, astrology, and intelligent design are examples of pseudoscience that are unsupported by empirical evidence. Pseudo- science is common among popular psychology gurus who write self-help books and appear on TV talk shows presenting novel systems to solve your romantic relationship problems, end your episodes of depression, or help bring a normal life to your autistic child.

Research reports that appear in most journals have been evaluated by the researcher's peers (other scientists in the same field) for the rigor and appropriateness of methodology and the absence of flaws in the study. The report must meet a variety of standards for it to be published. When you read a journal article, one thing you will note is the level of detail used in describing the methodology of the study. Typically, the report has a separate "method section" that describes in great detail the people or animals that were studied (the participants or subjects of the study, respectively), the instruments and apparatus used to conduct the study, the procedures used in applying treatments and making measurements, and so on. Enough detail should be provided so that

anyone can replicate the same study exactly to verify the findings. The notions of replication and verification are important. They provide the checks and balances for research.

qualitative research

based on making observations that are summarized and interpreted in a narrative report. -The result of qualitative research, however, is typically a narrative report (i.e., a written discussion of the observa- tions). Qualitative research involves careful observation of participants (often including interaction with participants), usually accompanied by extensive note taking. The obser- vations and notes are then summarized in a narrative report that attempts to describe and interpret the phenomenon being studied. A qualitative researcher studying depression in adolescents would simply talk with adolescents, asking questions and listening to answers, and then prepare a written narrative describing the behaviors and attitudes that had been observed

The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is

based on the kind of data that they produce. Qualitative studies tend to produce narrative reports and quantitative studies produce numerical data that are evaluated using statistical methods. In this book, we focus on quantitative research. The research process is the way the scientific method is used to answer a particular question. The 10 steps of the research process provide a framework for the remainder of this book.

The scientific method is objective. That is, the observations are structured so that the researcher's

biases and beliefs do not influence the outcome of the study. Science has been called "a dispassionate search for knowledge," meaning that the researcher does not let personal feelings contaminate the observations.

As we shall see, there is a multitude of ways—by error or chance—in which a study can result in an erroneous conclusion. Researchers can also commit fraud and deliberately falsify or misrepresent the outcome of research studies. As scientists, it is important that we scrutinize and evaluate research reports carefully and maintain some skepticism about the results until more studies confirm the findings. By replicating studies and subjecting them to peer review, we have

checks and balances against errors and fraud

The scientific community makes observations public by publishing reports in scientific journals or presenting their results at conferences and meetings. This activity is important because

events that are private cannot be replicated or evaluated by others.

Note that scientific research is based on gathering evidence from careful, systematic, and objective observations. This is one of the primary features that differentiates science from other, less rigorous disciplines known as

pseudosciences.

As a final note, we should warn you that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is not as simple as numbers versus no numbers. In fact, the scores obtained in quantitative research occasionally are

qualitative values. For example, a researcher examining the relationship between education and political orientation could classify participants according to education (college degree, yes/no) and political orientation (conservative/liberal). Notice that these variables do not produce quantitative measurements—both are qualitative. However, the measurements ultimately are transformed into numbers by computing the percentage of college graduates who are conservative and comparing that number with the percentage for those without a college degree. As a result, this study would be classified as quantitative research

One way to reduce the likelihood of the influence of experimenter expectation is

to keep the people who are making the observations uninformed about the details of the study. In this case, we sometimes say the researcher is blind to the details of the study

Quantitative research

the fact that this type of research examines variables that typically vary in quantity (size, magnitude, duration, or amount). Part of the research process involves using different methods for measuring variables to determine how much, how big, or how strong they are (Chapter 3). The results, or data, obtained from these measurements are usually numerical scores that can be summarized, analyzed, and interpreted using standard statistical procedures.

he scientific method is public. By this we mean that the scientific method makes observations available for evaluation by others, especially other scientists. In particular, other individuals should be able to repeat the same step-by-step process that led to the observations so that they can replicate the observations for themselves. Replication, or repetition of observation, allows

verification of the findings. Note that only public observations can be repeated, and thus only public observations are verifiable.