Chapter 1 – The Scientific Method

1. Chapter 1 – The Scientific Method

2. Review

3. Review The Scientific Method: A method of acquiring knowledge that… • Uses observations to develop a hypothesis • 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, & the cycle continues.

4. Review: Scientific Method

5. Group Activity • Groups of 3-6 people. • For the next two scenarios, discuss & identify each of the 5 steps of the Scientific Method. • From the findings, generate 2-3 predictions for future research.

6. Scenario 1 Dr. Smith hears that eating 5 fruits and vegetables a day improves the look of your skin. She thinks this must be because of the vitamins in the fruits/vegetables. She predicts there will be no difference after 6 weeks between those assigned to eating 5 fruits a day and those given the equivalent amount of artificial vitamins. However, after 6 weeks she finds that those eating 5 fruits a day had better improved skin than those taking vitamins.

7. Scenario 2 Dr. Hall is a High School guidance counsellor. He notices that depressed students spend more time talking about social networking sites. Assuming that this means that social networking sites cause depression in teenagers, he administers a depression scale to 10th grade students and asks them how often they use Facebook on average each week. The results show that the more hours 10th graders spent per week on Facebook, the more likely they were to show signs of depression.

8. Eating 5 fruit/vegetables per day improves skin. Vitamins are behind the improved skin found in those eating 5 fruit/vegetables per day. No difference in skin appearance between those eating fruit and those taking vitamins. Tests 2 groups over 6 weeks (half eating 5 fruit per day, the other half taking vitamins). Found the group eating fruit to have better skin than those on vitamins (against hypothesis). Future research? What could Dr. Smith test next? Scenario 1

9. Depressed teens talk more about social networking sites. Overuse of social networking sites increases depression in teenagers. Tenth graders who use facebook more will be more likely to show signs of depression. Administers a depression scale to 10th graders and asks them their average facebook usage. Teens who use facebook often are more likely to show signs of depression (supports hypothesis). Future research? What could Dr. Hall test next? Scenario 2

10. The Process of Scientific Inquiry Planned Observations New Hypothesis Prediction Planned Observations New Hypothesis Prediction Hypothesis Observation

11. Other Elements of the Scientific Method • Principles of the Scientific Method: 1) It is empirical 2) It is public 3) It is objective (It should also be ethical, but we’ll get into that later)

12. Science is Empirical • Answers obtained via observations. • Unlike hypotheses & preliminary data, requires empirical verification. • “Scientific facts” cannot be accepted until empirically demonstrated. • An answer may be “obvious” by common sense, perfectly logical, and all the experts might support it, BUT it is not scientifically accepted until it has been empirically demonstrated • Observations have to be structured to support/refute hypothesis.

13. Science is Empirical • Ex: Do larger doses of vitamin C prevent the common cold? • Asking people if they take vitamin C & how many colds they get is not sufficient b/c not structured. • What about dosage level? Proper diagnosis of common cold vs flu? Age? General health? Lifestyle? Biasing effects of beliefs? Vitamin C vs placebo? • You need systematic observations to address specific questions performed under specific conditions. • Observations are systematic b/c they are performed under a specified set of conditions so that we can accurately answer the question.

14. Science is Public • Observations are made available for evaluation by others, especially other scientists. • e.g., publishing, meetings/conferences. • So that other scientists can replicateexact same process to verify findings. • Research reports/articles provide enough detail so that the study can be replicated exactly • Re-examination by peers for flaws. • “checks & balances” of science

15. Science is Public • Helps eliminate fraudulent claims. • Replication = check results are not erroneous (“a fluke” or made up). • Ex: Marc Hauser, Harvard primatologist, found guilty of 8 counts of scientific misconduct in Aug. 2010. • Falsifying data • He resigned in 2011.

16. Science is Objective • Observations structured to eliminate influence from bias or beliefs. • Expectations can influence findings. • Ex: John is positive his study will show that women have better memories, so he doesn’t think it’s a big deal that he revealed the hypothesis to a few women before the study started. He finds what he predicted. • Can be avoided using “blind” studies (discussed later). • Blind = the person making the observations is uninformed about the details of the study

17. Science versus Pseudoscience • Science – based on gathering evidence from careful, systematic, & objective observations. • Pseudoscience – a system of ideas, often presented as science, but lacking key scientific components. • e.g., aromatherapy, astrology, intelligent design, etc., not supported by evidence. • Common among pop-psych gurus who write self-help books and go on talk shows presenting novel ways to fix your relationship problems, end your depression, or become more of a “complete person.”

18. Science versus Pseudoscience • Jenny McCarthy • Claimed mercury in vaccines causes autism. • No medical evidence. • 24% of parents place some trust in celebrity advice, like that of McCarthy’s. • Was awarded The 2008 James Randi Educational Foundation's Pigasus Award (granted for contributions to pseudoscience) for the 'Performer Who Has Fooled The Greatest Number of People with The Least Amount of Effort'. • Other winners: • Dr. Oz – won 3 years in a row for promoting “quack medical practices” with no scientific basis • CVS/pharmacy – won for their work to support the manufacturers of scam “homeopathic medications” (making them approx. $870 million a year in the U.S.)

20. Science versus Pseudoscience • How science differs from pseudoscience: • Testable & refutable hypotheses. • Demands an objective & unbiased evaluation of all available evidence. • Actively tests/challenges its own theories, & adapts theories when new evidence appears. • Theories grounded in past science.

21. 1. Testable/Refutable Hypotheses • Science - theories can be refuted. • A scientific theory must identify what observations would indicate it is wrong. • Findings may disprove theory. • Contradictory evidence = theory abandoned or modified. • Pseudoscience - typically ignores negative results entirely, discounts them, and/or explains them away w/o altering original theory.

22. 2. Objective Evaluation of All Evidence • Science – results must show consistency; not be explained by outside factors (i.e., reliability). • e.g., clinical trials must show consistent success across participants that cannot be attributed to other factors. • Pseudoscience – relies on subjective evidence (testimonials or anecdotal reports of success). • Focus on a few selected examples, ignores failures. • “I lost so much weight with (insert any advertised diet here)!”

23. 3. Testing/Adapting Theories • Science - theories constantly evolving. • Constantly testing and challenging its own theories. • Pseudoscience - ignores contradictory evidence & treats criticism as personal attack. • Theories tend not to change. • Ex: Argument that world is only 6000 years old.

24. 4. Grounded Theories • Science - depends on past empirical support. • Ex: Teaching children w/ autism communication skills using established theories of learning & empirically-supported principles. • Pseudoscience - creates new disciplines & techniques unconnected to eststablished theories/evidence (made up jargon). • Ex: Claiming aromatherapy is beneficial because smells activate olfactory nerves that release endorphins.

26. Quantitative vs. Qualitative research • In this class we focus on Quantitative research • Quantitative – this type of research examines variables that typically vary in quantity (size, magnitude, duration, or amount). • Use different methods for measuring variables to determine how much, how big, or how strong they are (more in Chapter 3) • Results, or data, obtained are usually numerical scores that can be summarized, analyzed, and interpreted using statistics

27. Quantitative vs. Qualitative research • Primary distinction between Quantitative and Qualitative = type of data produced • Qualitative research • Result = typically a narrative report (written discussion of the observations). • Involves careful observation of participants and extensive note taking. • Observations and notes are then summarized in a narrative report attempting to describe and interpret the phenomenon being studied.

28. Research Terms: Control • Control – 3 meanings in scientific research • Check or verification in terms of a comparison (control group) • Eliminating influence of extraneous variables (controlling for confounds) • Producing a change in a phenomenon by manipulating the antecedent events (controlling the outcome)

29. Research Terms: Experiment • Experiment: an attempt to determine cause-&-effect relations that exist in nature. • Identifying factors that result in or cause predictable events. • 3 related factors: • Independent variable (IV) • Dependent variable (DV) • Extraneous variables (EVs)

30. Research Terms: Independent Variable (IV) • Variable researcher directly manipulates. The IV is: • Independent – directly manipulated by investigator • Variable – must assume 2 + values (levels) • Causal part of relationship. • i.e., control the outcome.

31. Research Terms: Dependent Variable (DV) • Recorded info or results of experiment (what we measure) • Effect half of cause-&-effect relationship. • Measured, not manipulated. • Changes in DV scores depend on IV manipulation.

32. Research Terms: Extraneous Variables • Factors, other than IV, that can influence DV & change results. • EV or IV caused effect? • i.e., control for confounds.

33. The Research Process • Studies use scientific method to address a specific question. • General idea Data collection Interpretation • There are 10 steps • Decisions are required at each stage regarding how to proceed • Each decision will have advantages & disadvantages (i.e., no decisions are completely right or wrong. • 10 steps…

34. 1. Find a research idea 2. Form a hypothesis & prediction 10. Refine or reformulate your research idea 3. Define variables (measurement details) 9. Report the results 10 Steps in the Research Process 4. Identify & select participants 8. Evaluate the data 5. Select a research strategy 7. Conduct the study 6. Select a research design

35. 1. Find a Research Idea • Involves : • 1) Selecting a general topic area (starting point). • 2) Reviewing literature to find unanswered questions & identify relevant variables. • Keep in mind that your ideas will develop as you review literature and will eventually become a specific idea • Ex: Joanne is interested in lifestyle choices that predict obesity. She reviews the literature & finds that no one has looked at whether attitudes towards organic farming play a role in overeating.

36. 1. Find a Research Idea • Finding an unanswered question: • Suggestions for future research &/or limitations in published research studies. • Critical review to identify “hole” or “gap” in research literature. • Research questions can have 1+ variables & can look for descriptions or relationships between variables. • Ex: “How much sleep do college students get?” vs. “Is portion size related to food consumption?”

37. 2. Form a Hypothesis & Prediction • Skip step 2 if research question is descriptive only. • Example: • Research question = How much sleep do college students get a night on average? • If the question involves relationships between variables, form a hypothesis • Example • Research question: Are larger portion sizes related to over eating • Hypothesis: increasing portion size will cause an increase in the amount of food eaten

38. 2. Form a Hypothesis & Prediction • Goal: To prove hypothesis correct! • So pick a hypothesis, or answer to your research question, that seems most likely to be correct • Likelihood based on previous results. • Hypothesis is the foundation of the research study. • Identifies specific variables & predicts relationship. • Results can support or refute hypothesis. • Hypothesis should be logical, testable, refutable, & positive.

39. 2. Form a Hypothesis & Prediction • Logical • Founded in established theories. • Conclusion of a logical argument. • Example: Premise 1 - Academic success is highly valued & respected in society.Premise 2 - Being valued & respected by others promotes self-esteem.Hypothesis – Academic success will be related to higher self-esteem. Basedon Past Research

40. 2. Form a Hypothesis & Prediction • Testable • Possible to measure/observe all variables. • Speculation ≠ scientific hypothesis. • A testable hypothesis: All variables, events, & individuals are real, & can be defined & observed.

41. 2. Form a Hypothesis & Prediction • Refutable (can be proven wrong) • Can obtain unpredicted results. • e.g., negative when expecting positive relationship between variables. • AKA falsifiable hypothesis. • Critical component. • Nonrefutable: Cannot be tested. • e.g., If people could fly, there would be less depression. No way to test this…

42. 2. Form a Hypothesis & Prediction • Positive • Statement about existence of something (a relationship, difference, or effect). • e.g., “there is a relationship between X and Y” NOT “there is no relationship…” • Science’s default assumption relationship does not exist until there is evidence, so research process does not test for a lack of existence.

43. Review Are the following hypotheses testable, refutable, and positive? Testable Refutable Positive • Men see red differently than women.

44. Review Are the following hypotheses testable, refutable, and positive? Testable Refutable Positive • Men see red differently than women. • Married couples who go to church are happier than those who do not.

45. Review Are the following hypotheses testable, refutable, and positive? Testable Refutable Positive • Men see red differently than women. • Married couples who go to church are happier than those who do not. • There is no difference in depression between cat-people and dog-people.

46. Review Are the following hypotheses testable, refutable, and positive? Testable Refutable Positive • Men see red differently than women. • Married couples who go to church are happier than those who do not. • There is no difference in depression between cat-people and dog-people. • It is more difficult to remember names of places than names of people.

47. 3. Define & Measure Variables • How you will define & measure variables. • Ex: You hypothesize that children who watch more violence on TV will be more aggressive. • How do you distinguish b/w more & less TV violence/aggression? • How will you measure TV violence & aggressive behavior? • Define variables so it’s possible to empirically measure them. • You can look through previous research to see how other researchers have defined and measured your variables of interest.

48. 4. Identify & Select Participants • Decide who is being observed & measured. • Includes: • What kind of individuals will participate. • How many individuals you will need. • Where and how to recruit them. • Participants = human; Subjects = nonhuman (e.g., rats). • Are there restrictions? • Right-handed only? Women only? Middle-income families only?

49. 4. Identify & Select Participants • At this point, the researcher must plan for the safety and well-being of the participants/subjects • Inform them of all relevant aspects of the research • Especially any risk or danger than may be involved • Procedure used to recruit must be ethical • Ex. You may pay participants, but not so much to coerce individuals who normally wouldn’t participate • Ethical considerations often interact with your choice of participants • Ex. In a study examining swearing, it wouldn’t be ethical to use children as participants

50. 5. Select a Research Strategy (discussed more later) • Your research approach to evaluate y0ur hypothesis. • Experiment? Correlational? Etc. • Research strategies will be discussed in more detail in later chapters. • Strategy usually determined by 1 of 2 factors: • The type of question asked. • “Is there a relationship b/w 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?” • Sound similar but require different studies. • Ethics & other constraints (discussed in Chapter 4)