Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/19

Click to flip

19 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Be able to explain what it means to think critically, including the necessary components.
Knowledge: topical
Skills: ability to evaluate both the reliability and validity of the info
Skepticism: healthy level of questioning that comes naturally with more knowledge of the topic, and leads us to ask why? How? Etc.
Be able to explain how we gain knowledge in everyday life, including examples, according to Pierce (1877).
1. Appeal to authority: because someone we trust/deem credible told us so
2. Personal experience
2a. reasoning (rationalism)
2b. observation (empiricism)
2c. tenacity: because it's always been believed
2d. superstition/intuition: unrelated behavior is paired with successful outcome
2e. intuition: brain picks up on subtle behavioral cues/stimuli
Be able to describe the steps in the process of the scientific method, using a novel example to illustrate your understanding.
Steps:
consider observations
develop theories (inductive reasoning)
develop hypothesis (ded. reasoning)
test the hypothesis
consider observations

example:
consider observations: I observed that my roommate eats his daily snacks with his mouth open and makes a loud smacking noise with each bite.

develop hypothesis: I notice that this does not annoy him, and wonder/hypothesize if his obliviousness to this sound remains intact if I assume the role of the loud eater.

I test this hypothesis by starting a daily snack routine in our otherwise quiet room and letting a crisp smack echo from my mouth with each bite into my food, and observe the reactions of him, ready to observe any signs of annoyance/confrontations/questioning to my newfound behavior.

If he confronts me, I have evidence that confirms my hypothesis. If he merely shows signs that suggest discomfort in my loud chewing, I have observational data that suggests a strong correlation between loud chewing and an annoyance in people nearby.
4. Be able to explain what it means to say that the scientific method is “self-correcting.”
Once a hypothesis is tested, the results will either support it or suggest another explanation. If the original hypothesis is supported then people can confidently accept the relationship between variables and also re-create the test themselves to further solidify the belief or promote their own findings. If the results don't support the original hypothesis, then they will likely lean towards another hypothesis and thus point researchers in what is believed to be the right direction and correct from the previously corrected way of thinking.
5. Know and be able to give examples of the 4 assumptions of the scientific method.
1. reality of space, time, and matter
**where we are is reality and not some weird dream we perceive as reality

2. we live in an orderly universe that must follow certain laws of physics (i.e. there exists discoverable relationships between objects or events in the universe)
**gravity keeps us on the earth
3. must accept concept of determinism (i.e. there is a physical explanation for everything)
**if my pulse speeds up, there is a reason or multiple physical explanations for it, it didn't just happen by chance)
4. our human brains are good at understanding things (i.e. we must trust our perceptions, memories, small unbiased samples, ability to reason, induce&deduce)
**if i observe 4 rocks in front of me, there is no reason to suspect that my mind is just projecting the illusion of seeing 4 rocks.
Know the situations in which it is best to use correlational research designs.
situations in which we cannot conduct an actual experiment
Be able to explain the correlation coefficient, and describe relationships between variables if given the correlation coefficient between the variables.
CC: measures the degree and direction of the relationship between two variables 1 to -1
From a graph of data points, be able to identify whether two variables are likely positively correlated, negatively correlated, or unrelated.
check.
able to explain, using examples, why causation cannot be implied from correlation
we don't know what caused what
or if a 3rd unknown variable (i.e. confounding variable) caused the relationship. Or if it it's a combination of all the above
Be able to explain and give an example of an illusory correlation.
seeing the relationship among variables, even if the relationship doesn't exist
Know the minimum number of IV levels necessary for an experiment, and why.
2, you need a base level to which to compare the different data
Know the criteria for choosing appropriate DVs.
stability--this is needed for good reliability in recreating the study

validity--must be what it claims to be
Know the two necessary criteria for an experiment.
1. random assignment
2. manipulate the Ind Var.
Be able to explain the purpose of random selection and random assignment.
random selection is ensures that the sample is representative of the
population of interest

random assignment ensures the mean characteristics of the members
of each group are equal in all regards, other than
the level of the IV that they will receive.
Be able to identify the situations in which quasi-experiments are necessary.
when we want to study the relationship between inherent variables of a particular group of people and another variable
Be able to clearly explain the general procedure of an experiment.
1. Randomly assign participants to groups
(i.e. different levels of the IV).
2. Treat the groups differently (i.e.
administer the IV).
3. Compare the mean DV scores.
Know the advantages of within-subjects designs.
1. fewer subjects show same results
2. greater statistical power
Know, and be able to thoroughly describe the potential problems with within-subjects research designs, providing novel examples of each.
1. Practice effects
2. Sensitization effects
3. Carry-over effects
Know any possible solutions to problems with within-subjects designs.
use a latin square for counterbalancing. do this by placing each subject group on a specific row for a specific order of treatments so none appear more than once in each column and row