PSY 6190/7190 Langston Strong inference.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
(second logo) Positive Management / Supporting Change (second logo) Positive Management / Supporting Change.
Advertisements

What is Psychology? Goal Be a critical thinker – ask questions. Believe nothing without examining the evidence. 2. Consider that often the answers.
Introduction to The Scientific Method Biology 155 Spring 2010 B. L. Krilowicz.
The Ladder of Inference:
1 Procedural Analysis or structured approach. 2 Sometimes known as Analytic Induction Used more commonly in evaluation and policy studies. Uses a set.
The structure of scientific revolution Thomas Kuhn's perspective.
STRONG INFERENCE John R. Platt Science. 146, October Arin Tuerk October
“An attempt to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence.
Quantum theory and Consciousness This is an interactive discussion. Please feel free to interrupt at any time with your questions and comments.
CHAPTER FIVE: THE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE P H I L O S O P H Y A Text with Readings ELEVENTH EDITION M A N U E L V E L A S Q U E Z.
Welcome! Econ A494 Math Econ & Advanced Micro Theory Spring 2013 Prof. Jim Murphy.
Nature of Science & Scientific Investigations
Biological Science.
Nature of Science & Scientific Investigations. The Scientific Method “The Scientific Method” –FORGET IT!!! There isn’t ONE right way to do science! –The.
What is Science?.
CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim
Theories and Hypotheses. Assumptions of science A true physical universe exists Order through cause and effect, the connections can be discovered Knowledge.
Nature of Science Observation v. Inferences Hypothesis, Theories, & Laws Variables & Controls.
Fall 2009 Dr. Bobby Franklin.  “... [the] systematic, controlled empirical and critical investigation of natural phenomena guided by theory and hypotheses.
Biology. Observations are a critical component of science.
“ WHAT Science IS AND Science is NOT ” SCIENCE IS…
The Practice of Statistics, 5th Edition Starnes, Tabor, Yates, Moore Bedford Freeman Worth Publishers CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim 9.1 Significance Tests:
S2 PSE Relationships Lesson 1 Values Rights Responsibilities.
The Scientific Method. Scientifically Solving a Problem Observe Define a Problem Review the Literature Observe some More Develop a Theoretical Framework.
+ Testing a Claim Significance Tests: The Basics.
History of Psychology What is Psychology? Typical answer is “The scientific study of the mind and behavior.” Answer assumes that Psychology is a science,
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
Theories of Mate Selection
SOLVING PROBLEMS ANALYTICALLY AND CREATIVELY
Character in Fiction.
Locating The Problem Dr. Anshul Singh Thapa.
Unit 5: Hypothesis Testing
Nature of Science.
Warm Up Check your understanding p. 541
Character in Fiction.
Quantum theory and Consciousness
© LOUIS COHEN, LAWRENCE MANION AND KEITH MORRISON
The one-caring as teacher
Criticisms of Sociology as a Science:
CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim
Intro. To Science.
Early Childhood: Social & Emotional Development
IS Psychology A Science?
IS Psychology A Science?
การคิดวิเคราะห์แบบไตร่ตรอง (Reflective Thinking)
What is Science?.
CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim
CONSUMER MARKETS AND CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOR
CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim
Significance Tests: The Basics
Theory & Research Dr. Chris Dwyer.
Criticisms of Sociology as a Science:
Character in Fiction.
CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim
ATTRIBUTION THEORY.
Theory of Knowledge Human sciences.
OBSERVATION METHOD → It literally means looking outside oneself where we observe the mental process of others. → Overt behaviour is the manifestation of.
Character in Fiction.
IS Psychology A Science?
CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim
Chapter 15 © Routledge/Taylor & Francis 2014
Character in Fiction.
Character in Fiction.
Scientific Inquiry Take out some note cards, a pencil, and your note card holder Write the following terms on one note card each: Take a textbook from.
Character in Fiction.
Characters in Fiction.
CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim
Hypothesis, Theories, & Laws Variables & Controls
The Scientific Process
CHAPTER 9 Testing a Claim
Presentation transcript:

PSY 6190/7190 Langston Strong inference

How should we plan studies? I’m taking a lot of this early material from Greenwald (2012; doi:10.1177/1745691611434210). Keep in mind, my interpretation of it might differ from his.

How should we plan studies? Isn’t confirmation bias dangerous? Yes, but… The dogmatic attitude of sticking to a theory as long as possible is of considerable significance. Without it we could never find out what is in a theory—we should give the theory up before we had a real opportunity of finding out its strength; and in consequence no theory would ever be able to play its role of bringing order into the world, of preparing us for future events, of drawing our attention to events we should otherwise never observe. (Popper, 1963, p. 312)

How should we plan studies? Isn’t confirmation bias dangerous? Yes, but… By ensuring that the paradigm will not be too easily surrendered[,] resistance [i.e., confirmation bias] guarantees that scientists will not be lightly distracted and that the anomalies that lead to paradigm change will penetrate existing knowledge to the core. (Kuhn, 1970, p. 65)

How should we plan studies? On the other hand… Important as the intellectual affections are as stimuli and as rewards, they are nevertheless dangerous factors in research. . . . The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence; and as the explanation grows into a definite theory, his parental affections cluster about his offspring and it grows more and more dear to him. . . . So soon as this parental affection takes possession of the mind, there is apt to be a rapid passage to the unreserved adoption of the theory. . . . The mind lingers with pleasure upon the facts that fall happily into the embrace of the theory, and feels a natural coldness toward those that assume a refractory attitude. . . . There springs up also unwittingly a pressing of the theory to make it fit the facts and a pressing of the facts to make them fit the theory. . . . The search for facts, the observation of phenomena, and their interpretation are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. (Chamberlin, 1897, pp. 358–359)

How should we plan studies? The fix: [By bringing] into view every rational explanation of the phenomenon . . . [t]he investigator thus becomes the parent of a family of hypotheses; . . . the right use of the method requires the impartial adoption of all alike into the working family. The investigator [can then proceed] with a certain natural and enforced erectness of mental attitude to the inquiry. (p. 360)

How should we plan studies? Can we really treat multiple competing hypotheses (besides our own) as equals? Greenwald says not.

How should we plan studies? Strong inference is an attempt. Platt (1964): Devise multiple hypotheses. Design an experiment to test between these alternatives. Ideally, the outcome of one experiment will be consistent with only one of your alternatives and inconsistent with all the rest. Carry out your experiment.

Strong inference example Most & Wang (2011; doi:10.1177/0956797610397665): What causes emotion-induced blindness (an emotional picture in a stream of pictures makes it harder to detect a target picture)? Two hypotheses: Central mechanism (no matter where the emotional picture occurs, it will cause interference). Competition at a given spatial location (the emotional picture has to be in the same region as the target).

Strong inference example Most & Wang (2011): Two hypotheses: Central mechanism. Competition at a given spatial location. Study: Two streams of pictures, look for a target on one. Slip an emotional picture into one stream.

Strong inference example Most & Wang (2011): Two hypotheses: Central mechanism. Interference if the emotional picture is in the same stream as the target or a different stream. Competition at a given spatial location. Only interference in the same stream.

Strong inference example Most & Wang (2011): Most & Wang (2011, p. 302)

Strong inference example Most & Wang (2011): We can tease apart the two hypotheses.