1.Full description of procedures

2. Risks avoided whenever possible

3.Participants should be protected against risks

4.Freedom of withdrawal without penalty

5.Informed consent

6. Anonymity and confidentiality (safeguards right to privacy)

7. Debriefing

Institutional Review Board

protects the rights, welfare, and safety of research participants (including animals)

Physical injury

Psychological incury (mental or emotional stress)

Social injury (embarassment)

Risks are considered more than minimal

When individuals are "at risk" researchers are ethically obligated to protect participants' welfare and not be carried out if there are alternative lower risk methods

-Participants informed of potential risks

-Right to discontinue at any time

-Inform participants of basic nature of study

-Let participants know if identitiy will be disclosed

-Observing public behavior

-Disclosing your identity will alter participants behavior

-Informed consent will compromise purpose of study

-Studying archival data

-Sensitivity of information

-Setting of information

-Method of dissemination

How the information is reported

Sensitive information should be reported so individuals cannot be identified (group averages etc)

-Can study natural behavior

-Allows opportunities to investigate behaviors and mental processes not easily studied using nondeceptive methods

-Contradicts informed consent

-Researcher-Participant relationship not honest

-Frequent deception can make public/ individuals suspicious of research and psychology

-Study is extremely important

-No other method to conduct exp

-Deception would not have influenced individuals decision to participate

- Must inform participant after during the debriefing

Aim to gather in depth understanding of something (usually observational)

- Video or audio tape

- Immerse in situation

- Describe / interpret

Quantity- amount

Used to test hypotheses

- SYMLOG (A SYstem for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups)

-Easier to analyze

-Usually requires expectations

-Limits and directs observations

- Degree of objectivity (no bias etc)

- Degree of direct experience

-Concealment

-Ethics

-Nature of group and setting (not tell subject they are being observed... cameras etc)

Interview

Questionnaire

-Rapport (being "in sync" with, or being "on the same wavelength" as the person with whom you are talking)

-Interviewer Bias

- Face-to-Face

-Telephone

-Focus Groups

-May not be taken seriously

-Group administration: fast information
-Mail surveys (expect ~20% return)

-Internet survey (can control users)

Dependent: factor being measured

Independent: factor being manipulated

Defines variables in terms of specific procedures used to produce or measure it

Ex. Translating something abstract (happuness) into soemthing observable (increased smiling behavior etc...)

-Self report

-Observational

-Cause-effect determination

Observe and describe behavior

-Determine how humans/ animals behave (particularly in natural settings)

-Measures variables DOES NOT manipulate

-Naturalistic observation

-Correlation does NOT mean causation

-Researcher measures two variables and determines if they are related

-Can have possitive or negative correlation

Limitations: does not permit clear cause-effect interpretations

Correlational studies

Higher scores on one variable are associated with higher scores on the other variable

Ex of direct relationship (both are either + or -)

In correlational studies

When both variables are high or low (going in same direction either + or - not both...)

Correlational Studies

Higher scores on one variable are associated with lower scores on the other

Ex/ Inverse relationship

Random sampling

Stratified random sampling

Representative sample

Degree to which an experiment supports clear casual conclusions

-Cannot tell which variable has been influenced

-Behavior changes because of expectation, not the treatment

- Demand characteristics

Demand characteristics

(what and how to control)

Cues that research participants use to figure out

-Hypothesis of study

-Experimentor or expectancy effects

-Unintentional researcher influence

Control by: Double-blind procedures

Degree to which study results can be generalized

Must replicate experiment to determine it's external validity

Repeating a study to see if similar/ same results can be obtained

Need replication to determine external validity

Interrater reliability is the extent to which two or more individuals (coders or raters) agree.

-Addresses the consistency of the implementation of a rating system.

-Ex/ If both people rate someone a 10

Performing the same survey with the same respondents at different moments of time

The closer the results, the greater the test-retest reliability of the survey instrument.

The correlation coefficient between such two sets of responses is often used as a quantitative measure of the test-retest reliability

The capability of a device, unit, procedure to perform without fault

Test-retest

Split-half

Inter-rater

Equivalent forms

Refers to the extent to which a concept, conclusion or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world

Content (face)

Criterion

Construct

(also known as logical validity)

refers to the extent to which a measure represents all facets of a given social construct

Ex/ Depression scale may lack content validity if it only assesses the affective dimension of depression but fails to take into account the behavioral dimension

Whether the operationalization behaves the way it should given your theory of the construct

Assumes that your operationalization should function in predictable ways in relation to other operationalizations based upon your theory of the construct. Criterion validity describes the components to the exp.

-Approximate truth of the conclusion that your operationalization accurately reflects its construct. All  other terms of validity address this issue

-Wether a scale measures or correlates with the theorized psychological scientific construct that is measuring/ trying to measure

Nominal

Ordinal

Interval

Ratio

Measures by label/ name

Ex/ Colors: blue, pink, green etc.

Describe order (1st, 2nd, etc) or rank order (least to highest)

NOT size or degree of difference between items

 Ex/ Result of horse race is given by 1st 2nd etc NOT their times even though that determines the order

Ex/ Temperature on Celcius scale

Estimation of the ratio between a magnitude of a continuous quantity and a unit magnitude of the same kind

Mass, length, time, plane angle, energy and electric charge are examples of physical measures that are ratio scales

@font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "ArialMT"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

Look at the operationalization and see whether "on its face" it seems like a good translation of the construct

Weakest way to try to demonstrate construct validity.

Ex/  might look at a measure for proper procedure making raspberry jam, read through the instructions and decide that it seems like this is a good measure of raspberry jam instructions (i.e., the label "raspberry jam instructions" seems appropriate for this measure).

@font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "ArialMT"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

-Approximate truth about inferences regarding cause-effect or causal relationships.

-Only for studies that try to establish a causal relationship

-Only relevant to the specific study in question.

-You have evidence that what you did in the study caused what you observed (i.e., the outcome) to happen.

For instance, did removing gelatin from the raspberry jam prevent the jam from binding?

Selection Bias

(someitmes selection effect)

 @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } -There is an error in choosing the individuals or groups to take part in a scientific study.

-Refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples.

-Sampling bias is systematic error due to a non-random sample of a population, causing some members of the population to be less likely to be included than others, resulting in a biased sample.

Basic or pure research is conducted solely for the purpose of gathering information and building on existing knowledge, as opposed to applied research, which is geared towards the resolution of a particular question.

Ex/ A neurologist who studies the brain to learn about its general workings is doing basic research, while a neurologist who is searching for the origins of Alzheimer's disease is involved in applied research.

Study ongoing experiences and events that vary across and within days in its naturally-occurring environment.

Pro: enables researchers to measure the typology of activity and detect the temporal and dynamic fluctuations of work experiences

Cons: Can be percieved as invasive, there is possible self-selection bias (only certain types of ppl will participate which creates a non-random sample), and participants may not fill out their diaries at the specified times