R ESEARCH M ETHODS Psychology Chapter 2

N ATURALISTIC O BSERVATION Description Psychologist observes the subject in a natural setting without interfering. Advantages See how people or animals behave in their natural setting while not being watched. Disadvantages If they know someone is observing, they might put on a performance.

C ASE S TUDY Description Intensive study of a person or a group Advantages Provides a wealth of descriptive materials that may generate a new hypothesis. Disadvantages Does not prove or disprove anything. Results cannot be generalized. Researcher’s conclusions may not be right.

S URVEY Description Information is obtained by asking individuals a fixed set of questions. Advantages Can observe participant and modify questions. Takes less time to administer. Reduces possibility that researcher will influence participant. Disadvantages Danger that participants will give misleading answers in order to help themselves gain approval.

L ONGITUDINAL S TUDY Description Data is collected on a group over a number of years to assess if characteristics Advantages Ideal way to examine consistencies and inconsistencies in behavior over time. Disadvantages Time-consuming and precarious (participants may disappear in mid-study).

C ROSS -S ECTIONAL S TUDY Description Data is collected from groups of different ages and conclusions drawn about differences due to age. Advantages Less expensive than longitudinal and reduces the amount of time necessary for the study. Disadvantages May lead to false interpretations due to other factors (such as different ages grew up in different eras.

C ORRELATION Description Measure of a relationship between two variables or sets of data. Does not mean that one thing causes another. Advantages Helps us predict. Helps prevent illusory correlations. Disadvantages Cannot control for all possible factors.

E XPERIMENT Description Form a hypothesis, determine variables, test, compare, and interpret. Advantages Enables the researcher to control the situation and to decrease the possibility that unnoticed, outside variables will influence the results. Disadvantages There are ethical issues involved.

S INGLE -B LIND E XPERIMENT Experiment or clinical trial in which the researchers but not the subjects know which subjects are receiving the active medication or treatment and which are not: a technique for eliminating subjective bias, as the placebo effect, from the test results. Example: Milgram Experiment Stanley Milgram conducted a controversial experiment to determine the influence of authority.

M ILGRAM E XPERIMENT Milgram’s experiment is considered a single-blind study because participants were unaware of the fact that they were not actually administering shocks.

D OUBLE -B LIND E XPERIMENT A double blind experiment is an experimental method used to ensure impartiality, and avoid errors arising from bias. Neither the participants nor the researchers know which participants belong to the control group, nor the test group.

W HAT TO AVOID IN AN EXPERIMENT You want to avoid several things with experimentation. Unethical actions/experiments 1992: American Psychological Association published a set of ethical principals regarding collection, storage and use of data. It was amended once more in Self-Fulfilling Prophecies A situation in which the researcher’s expectations influence their behavior and the participants behavior. Placebo effects A change in a participants physical state as a result from a belief that the treatment will have an effect rather than from actual treatment.

C LEVER H ANS – S ELF F ULFILLING P ROPHECY Clever Hans was a horse known around the world for his inexplicable abilities. William von Osten put his amazing horse on display in 1891, and together he and Hans treated crowds to sights never before seen. Not only could Hans count — something no other animals were said to do — but he could also tell time, read and spell (in German, of course). Since the horse couldn't speak (that would have been a remarkable feat indeed), he communicated mainly by stamping one foot on the ground. If Hans was asked what five and two added up to, he would tap seven times; if he was asked what day came after Monday, he would be told to tap once for Tuesday, twice for Wednesday, and so on.

C LEVER H ANS – S ELF F ULFILLING P ROPHECY Clever Hans was examined by a group of researchers led by a philosophy professor named Carl Stumpf. In 1904 the group issued a statement saying that they could find no evidence of trickery. However, professor Stumpf and one of his students, Oskar Pfungst, would finally solve the mystery. They noticed that Hans could rarely answer questions that von Osten did not know the answer to, suggesting that there must be some link between the two.

C LEVER H ANS – S ELF F ULFILLING P ROPHECY Through careful testing and observation, they realized that Hans was responding to unconscious cues from his trainer. Ex: when Hans was asked to add two and three, von Osten or another questioner (standing right in front of Hans watching him closely) would lean forward slightly after Hans had tapped the fifth time but before he could tap a sixth. Von Osten had been watching Hans, but Hans had been watching von Osten just as closely. Each time the horse would reach the correct number of taps to provide human- like knowledge about the day of the week, what a word meant or a mathematical answer, his trainer would make subtle movements (sometimes merely a change in facial expression or a shift of stance) that would cue Hans to stop. The horse was of course rewarded for correct answers, which reinforced this behavior. Clever Hans was indeed clever — but much less so than von Osten and the public believed.