Week 2

Psychology and Research

16 September, 2015
02.01 Weekly Reading IDefining Psychology Revisited
The Nature of Psychology

Read pp. 7-16 from Section 1.1: What is Psychology? of the Course
Companion eText.

What is the difference between psychology, pop psych and

psychobabble?
What are levels of analysis and why does IB Psychology take an
integrative approach?
Why is critical thinking so important in general and how can these
skills be demonstrated in IB Psychology in particular?

What is psychology?
https://webcontent.pamojaeducation.com/Content/sso/course-companion/psychologyeText/course%20companion/007-016_IBCC_PSYCHOL_1.1.pdf
1.1 What is psychology?
want to understand why people behave the way they do.
We humans share the belief that if we can discover the causes of behaviour, we will be
able to explain them, and maybe also to control them.
folk psychology or common-sense psychology: explanation for daily interactions with
others
no definite answers to explaining human behavior,
Psychology is the scientific study of mental processes and behaviour and how these are
affected by internal processes and the environment
scientific: systematic and controlled study of human behavior
two sets of factors: internal and environmental
Pop psych, or popular psychology, refers to the popular beliefs full of psychobabble
science is better than astrology
multidisciplinary science: natural and social science
data collection: experiments, brain scanning, interviews, etc.
social psychologist, neuropsychologist, cross-cultural psychologist, cognitive psychologist
(neuroeconomics), developmental psychologists,
o neuroeconomics looks at the decision making in economics
levels of analysis
-a biological level, which focuses on physiology and genetics
-a cognitive level, which focuses on mental processes like memory, thinking, perception,
and attention
-a sociocultural level, which focuses on how environment and culture affect behaviour or
thinking
-society and culture is different than biological explanation (ex. gender)

-social cognition: the way we perceive a person based on gender (stereotypes)

-sociocultural: learn by watching behavior of people of same sex
-many factors can be relevant
"psychology has to take several levels of analysis into consideration when explaining the
complexities of human behavior.
A brief history of psychology: from philosophy to scientific psychology
-19th century from philosophy
-greek words psyche meaning the mind or soul and logos for reason
-philosophy of the mind
-epistemology: hope human beings come to know the world
-cognitive psychology: processes referring to how humans know the world (sensation,
perception, memory, language, and reason
-ethics
Building blocks of scientific psychology: theories and empirical studies
-psychologists refer to theories and make reference to empirical studies
-theory: explanation for a psychological phenomenon
-concepts: hypothetical constructs
-self-efficacy: ones own belief
-"the theoretical explanations are probable rather than certain, and therefore they are
always open to some degree of doubt.
Psychological theory in practice
-peoples mindset in explaining success
-Professor Carol Dweck found that people tended to look at intelligence or talent as
something that is either fixed or changeable
-fixed mindset believe that intelligence is static (dont like challenges)
-growth mindset believe that intelligence is not fixed
Usefulness of research in real life
-empirical investigation or study: researcher collects and analyses data in order to
investigate a psychological phenomenon
-One of the key goals of psychology is to improve the world we live in
think critically
-evaluate source
-critical thinking: the ability and willingness to assess claims and make objective
judgments on the basis of well-supported reasons and evidence, rather than emotions,
beliefs, myths, and anecdotes
-if there is evidence to support or contradict it
-"Like any science, psychology is constantly evolving in search of the truth that is never
really found"

02.02 Weekly Reading IIThe

Research Process in Psychology

Understanding the Research

Process

Read pp. 17-24 from Chapter 1.2: Understanding the Research

Process of the Course Companion eText.
Read Understanding the Research Process pp. 1-18 of the
Supplementary eText.

https://webcontent.pamojaeducation.com/Content/sso/course-companion/psychologyeText/course%20companion/017-024_IBCC_PSYCHOL_1.2.pdf
1.2
Understanding the research process
Danish Investigation: does young peoples attitude on health (fits and exercise) effect
behavior?
-plan: who will participate? method of collecting and analyzing
Aim, procedure, findings
-aim: purpose of study
-target population: groups whos being investigated
-procedure:step-by-step process to carry out study
-findings: how researcher interprets data
-interpreted in terms of culture of group
-be aware of potential bias
The Pygmalion effect (Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968)
-students who were told they were intelligent, excelled more
Participantswho should be in the study?
-participants: People who take part in a psychological study
-sample: nature of the group of participants
-representative of the target population
-representative sample
-size of sample matters (small group, individual has more influence)
-researchers advertise for participants
"Professor Stanley Milgram, Department of Psychology, Yale University, New
Haven

-opportunity sampling/ convenience sampling: whoever happens to be there and agrees

to participate
-leads to biased result (sampling bias)
-self-selected sample (volunteers)
-difficult to make generalizations
-snowball sampling: sample grows like a snowball rolling downhill
-participant variability: extent to which the participants may share a common set of traits
that can bias the outcome
-random sampling: every member of the target population has an equal chance of being
selected
-most desirable sampling method
-easier to generalize
-stratified sample: overcomes bias from subpopulations in random sampling
-more accurate reflection of the actual distribution
Considering ethics in research
-professor stressed restaurants in New York out by saying he had food poisoning to see
their response
-caused harm, which isnt allowed in psychological research
-procedure respects dignitary of participants
-informed consent, deception, debriefing, withdrawal from a study, confidentiality,
and protection from physical or mental harm

evaluating findings
-application: how a theory or empirical study is used
-applications are in terms of therapy, education, crime, the workplace, or sport
-examples: use of memory research to improve how evidence is taken from
eyewitness testimonies

validity and reliability

-validity: whether the research does what it claims to do
-ecological validity:study represents what happens in real life (outside the lab)
-cross-cultural validity: research relevant to other cultures (ethnocentric)
-reliable: the results can be replicated
-another researcher uses procedure, gets same results

some points to consider when looking at empirical studies

what was the aim of the research? Who made up the sample of participants? Was the
research valid and ethical? Can the findings be applied successfully to real-life
situations?
-study based on sample?
-lab or natural setting?
-participants asked to do things that are far from real life?
-findings are supported/questioned?
-practical relevance?
-ethical considerations

How to Get the Most Out of Studying: Part 1 of 5,

"Beliefs That Make You Fail... Or Succeed"
-psychology professor from Samford University, Stephen Chew

effective learning strategies

beliefs of study make you an effective learner
comprehension takes careful reading and review
memorizing isolated facts (ex. vocab words) doesnt help too much for comprehension
time and hardwork
dont guarantee success
multitasking is bad- get rid of distractions
metacognitions: a students awareness of their level of understanding of a topic
overconfident students seem to be weaker students
improve study effectiveness-improve study skills first

http://listverse.com/2008/09/07/top-10-unethical-psychological-experiments/
Unethical studies
Little Albert 1920
John

Watson, father of behaviorism, was a psychologist who was apt to

using orphans in his experiments. Watson wanted to test the idea of
whether fear was innate or a conditioned response. Little Albert, the
nickname given to the nine month old infant that Watson chose from a
hospital, was exposed to a white rabbit, a white rat, a monkey, masks
with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspaper, and a
miscellanea of other things for two months without any sort of

conditioning. Then experiment began by placing Albert on a mattress in

the middle of a room. A white laboratory rat was placed near Albert and
he was allowed to play with it. At this point, the child showed no fear of
the rat.
Then Watson would make a loud sound behind Alberts back by striking
a suspended steel bar with a hammer when the baby touched the rat. In
these occasions, Little Albert cried and showed fear as he heard the
noise. After this was done several times, Albert became very distressed
when the rat was displayed. Albert had associated the white rat with the
loud noise and was producing the fearful or emotional response of
crying.
Little Albert started to generalize his fear response to anything fluffy or
white (or both). The most unfortunate part of this experiment is that Little
Albert was not desensitized to his fear. He left the hospital before
Watson could do so.
Step 2
50-75 words discussion
judgement about how ethically the investigators acted in one of the human studies. why
unethical?
The investigators in the Little Albert study did not act very ethically. Just because the baby was
an orphan, they believed they could use him in this psychological experiment which ultimately
would affect his entire life. John Watson forced baby Albert to associate loud, scary noises with
anything white and /or fluffy. This distressful fear response was never corrected and he grew up
with only bad memories of white and fluffy things.
step 3
Review pp. 21- 22 of the Course Companion eText. Now re-evaluate the judgements you made
in Step 2. Has your thinking changed? What do you now understand by ethical considerations in
psychological research? Aim for 50-75 words.
The Little Albert experiment would not meet the ethical standards set to avoid harm to people.
The dignity of the participant was not respected. Being a baby, they probably did not have his
informed consent, deception was used and never explained, debriefing never occurred as he left
the hospital, he was never told he could withdraw, and he was definitely not protected from
mental harm. However, the information about the baby was kept confidential.
step 4
More recently it has become clear that it is not only in the field of research that ethical action is
vital, but also in the field of psychological practice, such as the participation of psychologists in
interrogation of prisoners of war. The boundaries of ethical interrogation techniques are laid
down by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (Links to an external site.) but in the
early 2000s it became evident that US national security concerns were overriding these ethical
concerns. A psychologist (Links to an external site.) who spoke out about the American

Psychological Association's involvement in supporting unethical interrogation practices was

ignored until the publication recently of an independent review report into APA ethics.
See also the relevant post on the IB Psychology@Pamoja Education (Links to an external site.)
blog.
Please add your thoughts on this to your discussion comment on the unethical experiment on
which you have chosen to focus. Can we place the possible defense of country above the
defense of an individuals human rights?
I do not believe it is ethically correct to place defense of a country above the defense of an
individuals human rights. Every person in this world should be treated equally, no matter their
nationality, wealth, etc. Interrogations should not include torturing anyone. Out of all of the
methods of getting information, making someone go crazy, should not be used at all, let alone at
the top of a military list. Just imagining yourself in that persons shoes is scary. Everyone has
their own beliefs and should not have to suffer in order for the protection of others. There are
other, mentally and physically harmless methods.

Step 2
The investigators in the Little Albert study did not act very ethically. Just because the baby
was an orphan, they believed they could use him in this psychological experiment which
ultimately would affect his entire life. John Watson forced baby Albert to associate loud,
scary noises with anything white and /or fluffy. This distressful fear response was never
corrected and he grew up with only bad memories of white and fluffy things.
Step 3
The Little Albert experiment would not meet the ethical standards set to avoid harm to
people. The dignity of the participant was not respected. Being a baby, they probably did not
have his informed consent, deception was used and never explained, debriefing never
occurred as he left the hospital, he was never told he could withdraw, and he was definitely
not protected from mental harm. However, the information about the baby was kept
confidential.
Step 4
I do not believe it is ethically correct to place defense of a country above the defense of an
individuals human rights. Every person in this world should be treated equally, no matter
their nationality, wealth, etc. Interrogations should not include torturing anyone. Out of all of
the methods of getting information, making someone go crazy, should not be used at all, let
alone at the top of a military list. Just imagining yourself in that persons shoes is scary.
Everyone has their own beliefs and should not have to suffer in order for the protection of
others. There are other, mentally and physically harmless methods.
Comment on the post of one of your classmates. If you like, you can use these comment openers
as outlined below:

Your post helped me understand that

Your post was very interesting, I had never thought that
Your post made me think, but I am not sure that I agree that
Your post was very well written, I particularly liked
Your post was very different from mine, what was your thinking behind your idea that

Your post was similar to mine, what was your thinking behind your idea that

Melissa Pellis-

Your post is very well written. I particularly liked how you mention the standards of ethics and
how they had to ask four times in order to withdraw from the experiment, even though they
should have the right to stop when they feel they are crossing the line of ethics. I also liked that
you talk about how deception is a part of the experiment, but the procedure in itself causes
distress and mental harm to the participants. I agree with you that is not right for people to put the
greater good above anyone elses life because they have different beliefs. I think our posts were
very similar.

https://quizlet.com/12269640/ib-psychology-research-terminology-flash-cards/

Natalie Cassello Application Activities: Understanding the research

process
Application Activities: Understanding the research process
September 23, 2015
Course Companion eText
Page 18
Apply your knowledge
1. State the aim, procedure, and findings of the study undertaken by Rosenthal and
Jacobson.
2. Do you think the teachers were informed about the aim of the study? Comment on this.
Aim (purpose):
to determine whether teachers expectations of students performance actually had any effect on
how well the students learned throughout the year
Procedure:
1. give 18 classes of students from kindergarten to sixth grade an intelligence test
2. choose 20% of the students at random and have teacher tell them they have unusual
potential for intellectual growth
3. retest students at end of school year
Findings (interpretation):
The results were explained by a self fulfilling prophecy. The expectations of the teachers
influenced the students performance. The students who were told would bloom showed a
significantly greater increase in test scores than those who did not receive attention from the
teacher.
Page 21
Be a researcher
You want to make a study of peoples motivation to engage in exercise. You decide to go to the
local fitness centre and conduct some interviews. Discuss the following.
1. If you use an opportunity sample at a local fitness centre, which group of people would be
overrepresented? Which group would be underrepresented?
2. Would you get a more representative sample if you advertised for participants in your
school?
1. Opportunity sampling only collects data from those participants who happen to be there
and agree to participate. If an opportunity sample is done at a fitness center, then the
people who have the motivation to exercise will be overrepresented. Those who dont

have any motivation to go to the center will be underrepresented in the data collection
sample.
2. Yes, you would definitely get a more representative sample if you advertise for
participants in your school because there is no target sample. A school would be much
better than the fitness center because people who both do and do not have the
motivation to exercise will attend. The audience is definitely more neutral and represents
a larger range. Its just a matter of getting people to participate.
Page 22
Be a thinker
Reread the research carried out by Rosenthal and Jacobson, as explained at the beginning of
this chapter. Discuss whether you think the study was ethical. State your reasons.
The research carried out by Rosenthal and Jacobson in 1968 at Harvard University may not have
been the most ethical experiment. The students, who were the participants, were somewhat
aware of the experiment because they took the tests and were given feedback. However, it relied
on deception, and therefore they were not informed of what they were being experimented on for
and did not give their consent. The students were never harmed physically, but being lied to may
have affected their mental state, although it was a positive encouragement. We do not know if
they were able to withdraw or if they were debriefed in the end, but this just goes to show that the
information was kept confidential. This experiment may not have been carried out in the most
ethical manner. I do believe that the results were received for the greater good rather than the
20% of students in those 18 classes, but those children still ended up benefiting for their
education and intelligence.