MOZART EFFECT

what is it and what does it make us be wary of 

found temporary 10 to 15 min increase in spatial reasoning performance after listening to it

Media depicted research findings message that any classical music exposure to babies makes them smarter

"just what we wanted to hear"

exemplifies the danger of research being wrongfully spread by media 

misinterpretation of research

Superstition

Intuition

Authority

Experience

Rational-Inductive Argument

Scientific Method

Objective?

Unbiased?

Reasonable?

Credible?

Can it be generalized?

"if I go out on the Friday the 13th something bad will happen"

based on belief/subjective feelings

NOT form of scientific reasoning

Subjecting and unreasonable

"I have a hunch that this is correct"

 based on subjectivity but many argue for it

Subjective and unreasonable

NOT form of scientific reasoning

"Because ___ told me so"

knowledge gained from a somewhat trustworthy source

source may be credible but credibility is subjective

NOT form of scientific reasoning

"I know because I lived through it"

gained knowledge and skills through action and feeling

may be valid or invalid to draw conclusions from since it is subjective and varies from person to person

NOT form of scientific reasoning

use reasoning to draw conclusions from existing knowledge

one's use of this knowledge may be subjective/biased

mainly used for Qualitative Research

NOT form of scientific reasoning

Empirical Research

objective, systematic, observable, repeatable, and can establish causality

test a hypothesis against empirical data

Availability Heuristic

Present/Present Bias

Confirmation Bias

Bias Blind Spot

recent events that are still fresh in our minds pop up more frequently and sway/guide us

vivid, recent, or memorable events/memories come to mind more easily, leading us to overestimate

Failing to think about what we cannot see

Failure to consider appropriate comparison groups

Only regarding information that confirms our beliefs as valuable 

Focusing on the evidence we like best

"Cherry-Picking"

Biased about being biased

"I am the objective one and you are the biased one"

believe biases do not apply to "us"

Relations of Ideas (rational)

statements about ideas

analytic, necessary statements that are a knowable a priori

"all bachelors are unmarried"

Matters of Fact (empirical)

statements about the world

synthetic, contingent, and knowable a posteriori

"the bachelor is sitting in a chair"

used to denote the foundations on which something is known

a priori = independent of any experience

a posteriori = known on the basis of past experience

analytic = true by their terms alone

synthetic = can't be shown to be true by their terms alone

Objective -- least amount of subjectivity/bias possible

Systematic -- occurs following the same steps

observable -- results are visible

repeatable -- another researcher can repeat your research and come up with the same results

establish causality -- by manipulating conditions and eliminating confounds

Set of statements that attempt to explain a set of observations (how variables relate to another)

Composed of:

Laws -- equations; few in behavioral science

principles -- less certain than laws 

beliefs/assumptions -- even less certain

Parsimonious -- few elements as possible

precise -- predictions as detailed as possible

testable -- falsifiable! if every possible outcome is consistent with your theory, it's useless

FALSE; they do not prove anything

supported by a lot of data are accepted as the current best understanding of the matter

Theory guides data collection and data informs aspect of a theory

Theory -- research questions -- research design -- hypothesis -- data -- support data strengthen theory OR nonsupporting lead to revised theories or revised research design

what is manipulated by the scientist

can infer causality

variable that is going to be observed

variables that can affect the dependent variable

various that you are not intentionally studying

when changed along with the independent variable, they provide alternative explanations (confounds)

variables that cannot be manipulated 

ex: gender, age, native language

can establish relationship but NOT causality between subject variables and outcome variables

too many confounds out of your control

WHAT ARE CONFOUNDS

HOW DO THE INFLUENCE THE PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH?

alternative explanation for an outcome 

researches must always be aware of and try to account for any and all possible confounds that may occur at each step of their research

researchers should try to design their studies without any confounds 

data fabrication

data falsification

cherry-picking

inventing data that fits your hypothesis

"fishing"

probing your data until you find the result you want

1947

set of research ethics principles for human experimentation set as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of WWII 

1964 - 2013

set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation developed by the World Medical Association

this developed the Nuremberg Code

Report defines ethical guidelines researchers should follow in the US 

1979

Partly in response to the serious ethics violations of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study

has 3 principles: respect for persons, beneficence, justice

individuals should be treated as autonomous agents protect people's rights (autonomy)

informed consent

protection of vulnerable populations such as infants, children, people with mental disabilities

prevent harm and minimize risks/maximize benefits

confidentiality

privacy

minimal risk (no more than present in everyday life)

balance between potential risk and potential benefit

balance of people who participate in research and those who benefit 

need to ensure that those involved in a study are representative of the kinds of people who would also benefit from its results 

wanted to study the effects of untreated syphilis on the men's health over long term period

men were told they would be given access to medical care for the first time in their lives

men were never told they had syphilis and cure was not released even when found

unethical choices: men not treated respectfully (lied to), they were harmed, researchers targeted a disadvantaged social group

series of studies on obedience to authority

you as the teacher and another as the learner

told to punish the learner for errors in form of electric shocks (from low to high voltage)

learner begins to grunt and scream and then goes silent for the highest shocks

experimenter tells you that you must continue, 65% of participants fully obeyed

ethical issues -- deception, protection of participants, right to withdrawal

need to relay to the participants:

purpose and details of the study

potential risks

potential benefits

data management (confidentiality)

participants rights (voluntary, can ask questions)

board of researchers and community members at a research organization

members should include: scientists, non scientists, non university members

task: review proposals for human subjects research

provides web based educational courses in research, ethics, responsible conduct of research, and research administration 

promoting public's trust in research enterprise

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)

established by Animal Welfare Act 1990

members: vets, researchers, non scientist, someone unaffiliated with the university

tasks: review proposals for animal research, inspect animal facilities every 6 months, evaluate personnel qualifications

way to measure a construct

a procedure for measuring an external behavior which allows us to make inferences about an underlying construct

Ex: intelligence -- IQ test

anxiety -- heart rate

hunger -- stomach growl

usually not measuring the construct but something we believe to stand for it

internal attributes or characteristics that cannot be directly observed

often the thing you want to investigate/measure

Ex: intelligence, anxiety, hunger, attitude, personality, etc. 

is it consistent? 

the consistency with which the same results are obtained for the same test, instrument, or procedure

can you re-test and get the same scores?

can you re-measure and get the same scores?

EXTERNAL

can two or more judges/raters give about the same score?

do multiple judges give similar scores?

EXTERNAL

do two or more parts of a test give the same score?

asking the same question slightly different should give similar scores

INTERNAL

internal -- extent to which a measure is consistent with itself

external -- extent to which a measure varies from one use to another

are you measuring what you think you are measuring?

the extent to which a measurement technique measures what it purports to measure

whether the observed effects are due to manipulation of your independent var

eliminating confounds leads to a higher internal validity

extent to which the results of a study can be generalized

other people, settings, over time

more natural setting = high external val

but will add random noise (nuisance variability) 

different testers may cause different results

Ex: participants are more attentive to a nicer tester (one that smiles) than to a serious one

way to reduce/eliminate: have consistent testers

participants guess what the experiment is about and either try to prove/disprove it

way to reduce/eliminate: do not inform them of the exact hypothesis being tested

pull a random subset of the population you're interested in

difficult

random assign participants to different experimental conditions

easier

H0 = mean I observe is obtained from the control

population

H1 = mean I observe is obtained from an experimental population

1-Beta

the power

want to reject false null so always want to increase the POWER

how? increase the sample size

decreasing the variance of the sampling distribution

1. lower population variability

2. increase sample size

will increase type I error

as sample size increases, the mean spread narrows

directional

greater or less than the mean of the real population

• H0: µ1 = µ2

• H1: µ1 > µ2 OR µ1 < µ2

non directional

mean of the sample will be DIFFERENT from the mean of the real

H0: µ1 = µ2

 H1: µ1 ≠ µ2 

Your alpha is divided into two tails 

come out monthly/quarterly

audience: other scientists 

types: empirical (original)

review (meta-analysis)

each chapter is written by a different author

audience: other scientists and students in the field

not peer reviewed as rigorously as journal articles, but editor of book is still selctive

sometimes a common way for scholars to publish their work

ex: English, Anthropology, Art History

not common for cog sci/psychology

1. write a manuscript

2. send to a journal -- wait 1 to 4 months; while waiting have 2 to 3 peer reviews critically

3. journal responds with:

rejection -- either give up or try another journal

revise and resubmit -- most realistic case

accept -- quite rare 

abstract -- concise summary

introduction -- topic of the study + background info

method -- details on how conducted; detailed enough for it to be replicated

results -- stats, tables, and figures

discussion -- summarize the study, discuss importance and alternative interpretations

references -- full listing of all sources utilized