Experimental Unit Test 1

-The methods you use in support of an opinion are hugely important. What you can say about something largely comes from the methods used to get the data.-Strong social system built around belief (Biklen) Have to adjust beliefs to the data at hand.-One's beliefs are not without consequence- the opinion that something worked can have extremely aversive consequences- (autistic boy and accused dad).-Beliefs make a difference.

-There has been a tremendous growth in science in our culture-linear function-exponential growth. Science has grown exponentially.-In our culture, 52% of people believe in astrology, 46% believe in ESP. 22% aliens landed on earth.-Dawkin's lament: If we have so much science in our society, why do 35% believe in ghosts, etc? No scientific data to support. Although we have a society that supports science, we're still susceptible to non-scientific viewpoints. -Psychology is a science- this class: Psychology as a science-data- how data shape our beliefs about behavior and human psychology.-Thinking scientifically is hard work. Lots of methods are designed in a way because we are susceptible to non-scientific information.-What is science? Hubbel telescope; microscope: tools of science. Molecules, equations: Products of science. Science is a way to go about acquiring knowledge, it's a set of behaviors (do research, collect data) A methodology. Science is an approach. -The scientific method: take with a grain of salt- No "the" scientific method- no recipe for science. you don't have to generate/ test an hypothesis.

-#1: No single formula for good science- no set of rules to follow invariantly to generate good, important data. Pavlov- didn't develop hypothesis- discovered accidentally- conditional reflexes.-#2: Just because it sounds scientific doesn't mean it's true.-#3: Just because someone says it authoritatively, doesn't mean it's true.-#4: Look for order and sometimes you will find it. If you look for cause/effect relations- exemplify what we mean by orderly relations- explain that order as a scientist. B.F. Skinner- I can't characterize exactly what I did, I just looked for cause and effect relations.-#5: Control your conditions. It's difficult to offer accounts of something that occur in uncontrolled conditions. FC: controlled conditions allowed us to really see what was going on. Control is a prerequisite to finding anything experimentally. Conditioned Reflexes play an important role in emotions. Enzymes in saliva begin digesting food. Studying chemical consistency and how the reflex worked. He (Pavlov) strictly controlled everything in his lab in the basement- this control allowed him to discover conditional reflexes. Uncontrolled factors need to be removed so you know what's really going on. We may have wrong interpretation or make things up if conditions are uncontrolled. -#6: Accidents and failures can be good. Pavlov saw order where he otherwise wouldn't have seen it because of such controlled conditions. Nothing in "The scientific method" about what to do with accidents. When an accident/failure turns into something good: serendipidous findings. At first Pavlov called it Psychic secretions- driving him nuts, couldn't figure it out. Was the dog psychic? Why was he salivating? All same events reliably preceded food in the mouth- dog developed conditional reflexes based on preceding events- I can gain control over those events- used a tone. Martin Selligman: learned helplessness. Phenomenon that occurs when you receive aversive stimulation for which no response will eradicate it- There's nothing you can do about it. If you experience a lot of this, you have a harder time learning aversive stimulation that could be avoided. Major component of depression- discovered an accident because his equipment broke when he was studying avoidance- animals in broken condition couldn't develop avoidance strategy compared to animals in condition that the equipment didn't break.-#7: Things are often more complex than they seem (The devil is in the details) Simple explanations are favored over complex ones. Things observed have more complexities than you might think. When you think you have something figured out, it will jump up and bite you and you'll be wrong. Leave no stone unturned.

-Some ways of going about doing things are much better than other ways. Systematic rather than non-systematic. It's very good to have experimenter be blind. There are characteristics of a scientific approach.-Why Science? One approach is not "better" than another, it's whatever works best for the person. (Post-modernism: if it works for you, it's fine). To some degree, post-modernist is correct. Who has the better track record? Is science perfect? No. Opens self up- here's how I did it, what I did, data- community: have at it. Even scientists have nonscientific personal beliefs. Science has the best track record- no other field has produced tangible results for the betterment of society/humans Science gets the job done better than any other way of knowing.

-Susceptible to anecdotes (personal stories). The growth of Facilitated Communication was predicated by anecdotal thinking. Our susceptibility to anecdotes are taken advantage of all the time. Anecdotes are not data. Beware of testimonials. They're not necessarily wrong/useless, but can't substitute for scientific data- can't be only source for information.-Susceptible to bold statements- often include Scientific Language. Sways our beliefs.-Over-reliance on authority- (Professional golfer offering a testimonial). To some degree, we all rely on authorities. Be careful. Don't rely on them when they say something not in line with what you know to be true. No substitute for scientific evidence.-Failures are rationalized- defense mechanism *It's in the best interest of science to lessen the degree to which we do nonscientific things.- we all have a tendency to act this way. Explain away our failures (particularly of a theory or viewpoint we're espousing). Science is a way of thinking.-Susceptible to wishes and emotion- family diagnosed with disease- particularly susceptible. Even the most imminent scientists- one guy works for Bell labs (helped invent the laser, etc.) Hard to get a job there. Arthur Schawlow- son with autism- big proponent of facilitated communication.-Susceptible to coincidence- "weird behavior occurs when there's a full moon- lunatic" Nurses in emergency rooms- weird cases when there's a full moon. Availability heuristic- memorable event, over attribute the importance of that event. B.F. Skinner- Pigeons in Operant Conditioning chambers- presented reward to pigeons every 15 seconds- each pigeon in its own chamber- after an hour, each pigeon was doing something bizarre and idiosyncratic- dramatically different. They were behaving as if that's what was producing the food. What they happened to be doing at the time food was presented.- coincidental- we are this way too. We tend to believe that two things that happen side by side cause each other- in many cases that's true (flip switch, light comes on). Skinner: Superstition in the Pigeon- superstitions can get formed this way. Message: wait for more data.-Hasty generalizations- Susceptibility to coincidence often leads us here. Concocting a rule/theory based on a small set of observations. Treating a single instance as it is a trend- especially if it's memorable- Availability heuristic- an occurrence available for us to remember will be judged as important/ indicating a trend.-After-the-fact reasoning- Coincidences lead here- post hoc ergo propter hoc (after that, therefore, because of that) B followed A, therefore A caused B.-Dichotomus (either-or) thinking. (Things are always more complicated than they seem.) Prozac is an effective treatment for depression- doesn't always work. Everything depends. Everything isn't black and white, good or bad, yes or no. Things are usually way more complicated.

-Base-rate error- 70% lawyers- 30% engineers- cognitive biases. Irrespective of any info, someone drawn at random more than half likely to be lawyer. Representative heuristic- see representative characteristics.-Scientific thinking recognizes susceptibilities/weaknesses they serve us well in day-to-day activities.-Scientific Thinking recognizes our weaknesses- we can be biased and we can be fooled. We're susceptible to making wrong judgments.-Empirical- What are the data? What methods were used? If you have a correlation between two variables, what does that mean? What can you say about it?-Skeptical- not cynical (believes nothing), but skeptical- about Hume's Maxim- British Philosopher- empirisists- A wise person proportions their beliefs to the data. Given the data, what's the most likely thing to be true? Take evidence and probability- judge it- what's the likelihood this could happen. Alien landings on earth- how likely?- is this the way aliens would come to visit us (to farmers) - other possibilities- drug use, get attention- become someone you weren't before, you can imagine lots of things in semi-conscious states. Burden of proof- facilitated communication- the one making unusual claim is the one who bears the burden of proof.-Over 90% of regular cocaine users previously used marijuana. Therefore, marijuana is a gateway drug. -Don't know: What proportion of marijuana users go on to use harder drugs and what proportion do not. Really about 10% marijuana users use harder drugs. More likely to go on to use harder drugs than someone who doesn't use marijuana.-Rational- statements follow logically from data. FC- rationalize failures, but not being rational. Irrational to conclude causation from correlation- not necessarily false or true.-Questions Authority- when at odds with empirical data. Make them produce data especially when at odds with valid data that you know.-Abandons wishes- when at odds with empirical data. FC- O.D. Hicks center abandoned wishes when data didn't support them.-Considers the source. -Everyone's claims are jaded by their own viewpoints. Select viewpoints can be targeted- texting after watching show. Consider the motivations of the claimant.-Belief that world is orderly. Science identifies causes- we understand why things happen. Events have potentially knowable causes. Some things we can never know, but there can be speculation. Scientific thinkers come up with probable causes.-Willing to remain without an answer until a satisfactory one is found. Some things we may never find a satisfactory answer for. Unexplained is not inexplicable. The claimant of the supernatural- "you can't explain it, therefore it's not true." Having no answer often is better than offering an unsubstantiated one. -FC video- Rather than believing they're something they're not, we accept them for who they are.-Willing to open one's claims to the scrutiny of others (peer-review)- All other characteristics flow from this one. In order for us to understand something, the process must be transparent. The people who claim to read people's minds never tell you how they do it. Science opens itself up to scrutiny so that any mistakes are transparent. Science is cumulative because of its transparency- builds upon itself.-Spinoza's Dictum- we should seek to understand rather than criticize or ridicule what turns out to be an invalid claim.

-Science: The search for order. Rather than offer a recipe you must follow, search for order- There are generally better things to do to produce good data. Science involves systematic thinking, but not recipe following.-Good scientific thinking Involves testable statements- can be tested under controlled circumstances.-What makes a statement testable: Precisely defined terms- unambiguous terms. Also involve measurable entities- you can't put anything to the test unless you measure something. Also must be falsifiable: capable of being false. Falsifiable statements must have defined terms and measurable entities. Testable and falsifiable are pretty much interchangeable terms. Also, often times stated in "if-then" form (contingency)...if this happens, this is likely to happen.-State things as specifically as you can. Scientific discourse must be more precise than causal discourse.-Operational definitions: Take terms and tell you how they're supposed to be measured.

-Testable: considered useless until it can be made testable.-Consistent with the data- FC: belief not consistent with data.-Parsimonious (Occam's Razor) - Had scouts describe what was going on by cutting to the chase (spying on opponent) - All else being equal, the simple account is preferred over a complex one. Good theories tend to be replaced by others that are more simple.-Show generality (External validity) It might apply to other circumstances. Apply to a wider range of circumstances. Hold under a range of conditions.-Avoid "pseudoexplanations" They're a little too common in Psychology. Not an explanation at all, looks like one. Involves taking an observation, describing it with a word, then taking description, turning it into a noun, using description to explain behavior. (1. High SAT, GPA, & IQ 2. "Intelligent" 3. "Intelligence" used to explain High SAT, GPA, & IQ.)-Take adjective, make it a noun. Take a description, make a thing out of it. Reification We do it all the time (first step in a pseudoexplanation) Aggression is a reified term. Most Psychological constructs are reified terms- can be useful- categorization.-Take creation and use it to explain the very thing and use it to explain the observations. Tautology: a circular argument. We haven't explained anything, we've named it- "explaining by naming" Having names for things is important- shouldn't use them to explain the things they name.-You stop search for explanation when you name something.-Keep things at adjectival level- Intelligent, Aggressive, etc.-1. Reification 2. Reified term explain behavior 3. Tautology 4. Stop search for real causes.

-Purely descriptive-Characterize a certain phenomenon. Make systematic observations about a phenomenon so we can describe characteristics. Ex: seat belt use in Wilmington, Food choices among college students, Mate choice in song birds, Self-injurious behavior in Autistic children, etc.-*self-report data don't match real behavior- not 100% correspondence.-Goal: Characterize behavior of some individual or population of individuals.-Systematic measurement (all methods involve this) In order to make progress, quantify. In order to understand something like drug use- quantify- cornerstone of descriptive research- don't just say "drug use is rampant."-Operational definition: What is an instance of the thing we're measuring- (What are we going to count as self-injurious behavior?)-Descriptive doesn't tell us- we know that it occurs and the extent to which it occurs, but doesn't tell us if people are over or under reporting. We don't know why the behavior occurred.

-We might examine other relevant variables like if teens used ecstacy more in '01, maybe it was more readily available -or- prevalence of raves (bc ecstacy is a club drug)-Express the relation between two (or more) variables. Measure at least 2 variables and see if they change with each other.-Variable: Entity being measured- it can vary. "Entities" that can vary along some measurable dimension. -Ecstacy can vary within an individual (a lot this period of time, not another) and across individuals (some use it a lot, some a little).-Behavioral variables: we want to know why the behavior occurs- if you know why, you can promote things/ reduce likelihood of things. Ex: # cigarettes/ day, GPA, amount of sleep, etc.-We can look at Environmental variables that may correlate with behaviors. When one changes, does the other? If so, may have an indication of why it occurs. Ex: Temperature, "stressors," stimulus presentation, "peer pressure," etc.-Characterizing Environment/ Behavior Relations is a gold mine of information.-Inferred. Invented. Constructed- Psychological constructs Ex. frustration, intelligence, hunger- we don't observe these things, we infer, invent, or construct them.-By taking relations between two variables (environmental/ behavioral, behavioral/ behavioral)- we can predict, which is the goal of the correlational method of research. If you know value of one, you can predict with better frequency another variable.-Comorbidities are behavior/behavior correlations.-Horizontal axis: suspected causal variable/-If there isn't a perfect correlation, other variables may be involved. Behavior is complex- many things affect the way we act.-Correlation gives us prediction- suggests further investigation- doesn't necessarily mean causation.-Why?: Direction issue: which causes which? (which comes first) you could do a longitudinal study to see which one popped up first. Also, issue of confounding: "third variable" problem. Relation not represented in random points in data- relation itself could have been cause by some other variable- some other variable changes along with potential causal factor which itself is the cause. Confounding variable: changes along with a potential causal variable. Ex: maybe living in a violent household may make someone inclined to watch violent TV and make them be aggressive.-A correlation can be highly affected by an outlier.-A correlation suggests a potential causal relation- all causal relations will show a correlation.-To show a causal relationship, we have to deal with confounds and directional issues. The only way to be sure is to do an experiment.

-Manipulate values of an Independent variable- measure resulting changes in a dependent variable. Most importantly, control effects of other variables.-Internal validity: the extent to which effects of confounding variables have been controlled. The most important characteristic is internal validity- the extent to which you've dealt with confounding variables.-To show a causal relation: -Covariation (correlation) between variables. -Temporal (time/order) relation. - cause precedes effect. -Elimination of alternative explanations - control confounds (An experiment is the only way to do this)-In order to satisfy all requirements for an experiment, you have to arrange artificial conditions- build a picture of the Psychology of humans. -Psychology as a science of behavior: -Describe behavior: what is depression? -Predict behavior: When is someone likely to be depressed -Control Behavior (via experiment). All this leads to: -General Principles (laws) of Behavior -Effective application to social problems.-Translational science: Taking these things, turning them into effective applications.-Psychology is a Translational science- we do very basic laboratory research in highly controlled artificial experiments. From basic research flows applied research (basic research > predictions about behavior)-Basic research informs applied research (uncontrollable events have certain kinds of effects, apply this in a more natural situation) > Behavior more relevant to the real world. From basic and applied comes application/interpretation > Build a set of treatments/ tools based upon data from research. All enterprises inform each other. For every unit, there's a reciprocal relation. Most important for basic researcher is Internal validity (a cause/effect relation) Applied researcher wants to extend external validity- does principle apply in other areas? Rat-lever-food human-drug-effect > reinforcement in application. Translational principle= each one translates to the other ones- take things from each, keep them going. Basic research informs treatment. Rats increase cocaine when they didn't have other things to do. Human treatment cocaine use decreased when given rewards- vouchers- for things to do- like ski lifts.

-The Ethics of collecting data and doing research (generating psychological principles) and Ethics of treatment (application of psychological principles)-Misconduct in Science: Science is an activity done by humans, we are not inherently unflawed- Also susceptible to same kind of thinking as other people.-Ethical issues in doing research: When you subject individuals to research, you expose them to things they may not be used to.

-Andrew Wakefield- paper in '90s about how vaccines cause autism- data fabricated.-Fabrication: Falsification of data: make data up completely. Manipulation of data: change data gotten.-To some degree, this isn't a simple matter, there are lots of grey-area traps. Ultimately, it leads to false beliefs of society and harmful treatments with devastating results.-Stephen Breuning: Developmental disabilities field- appalled that autism, etc. were treated with antipsychotic drugs- manage their symptoms (behavioral) began studying alternative meds- long term use of antipsychotics can have long-term physiological effects (ex: tardive dyskinesia). Looked at Riddlin- published studies on a variety of meds- He quickly published lots of studies, became an overnight star- fabricated his data.-Marc Hauser: Animal cognition at Harvard- famous for devising procedures to see degree at which non humans could understand what others were going through. Had primates observe others doing things and the primates could understand what they were going through. Wrote lots of books: Moral minds, etc. Evolutionary component to morality. He manipulated his data. He had a particular view of how things worked- really impacted how he collected his observational data. Experimenters make judgments about if what they observed matched operational definition. Operational definitions were fuzzy- he pressured graduate students to change the data. They didn't want to, but they folded under pressure- some of them told on him.-Office of research integrity: designed to be a place that helps to enforce/ discover cases of scientific misconduct. Conduct hearings- if there's enough evidence- verdict.-Stephen Breuning: completely made data up. Marc Hauser and Andrew Wakefield: manipulated data.

-Taking out an outlier to make results significant. When you read a report, you don't see original raw data researcher saw: they are graphed, transformed, distilled, analyze- change form from raw data to what you see in the report. Now, you can see raw data on the internet most of the time.-Sometimes data are legitimately omitted like if equipment messes up. Eliminated under conditions you have planned to occur. Omitting data that don't fit because of a preconceived notion=misconduct.

-Promoting ideas/work that isn't you own- passing it off as yours. Reproducing others' work and creating the impression it was yours. Ideas, data- Arnie Rincover- wrote a ton of grants: came across interesting data from a student in same area- took data and put it in a grant proposal- got the grant. Sentences/phrases- taking others, making it seem like it's yours- essentially is stealing. To some degree, all of your work is informed by others- must give proper credit.-Examples of plagiarism -Reproducing others' sentences/phrases exactly (or very closely) without quoting.-Extremely bad if not cited; unacceptable even if cited.-Using others' paragraph/sentence structure and selectively substituting words (e.g. synonyms). Even if cited.-Paraphrasing ideas or passages without citing.-The Mosaic - cutting bits and pieces from other work and putting them together,-Self-Plagiarism-?-Cheating in class: Taking something that's not yours- Pressure to do well.