Introduction to Psychology and Research

week 1 what psychology ? is The systematic & behaviour Psychology examination thought , emotion a many different Myths · & popular or Truths · Influences Misleading areas and behaviour of explain research. Misconceptions myths · mental processes understand to aims of how & 'Pop' Psychology misconceptions half-truths , & Lies people understand psychological findings reported people are more psychological likely distress the world : to experience during full moon. causing autism (concept which persists despite being the disproved theory in science) vaccines Only 10 % of schizophrenics our have brain is used multiple personalities Cannabis by 40 % statistically likelihood of suffering alcohol detecting is accurate an to Opposites anger than express in Blue Monday this knowledge findings > > - or , so it's day of part increases the year of misrepresenting the simplified people trying to seek in phenomena believed as a are of hold it to & crimes depressing become due to media Scientific papers There the most : can explanation - so attract Psychiatric hosp admissions during full moons of % way lies better It's All . cells brain kills test polygraph ↑ > is 0 5 . Drinking - Psychosis increases to 0 7 % it The of increases the risk use before accepting common a complex phenomena. for explain a complex simple explanation being fact will . misconceptions always a with worth such no checking . statements scientific basis your facts · Psychology a as science #isasoftsend SincPsychology a ,stand da therapies depend Se is lot a soft But recreate to the a people same soft concepts How to & - when need we this be we we a science others tried weren't able to get experiment they an have it sound clear like clear a the same more which soft of are science psych experiment definitions memory what definition is psych where ex concepts have we there When . scientifically we all it considered hard intelligence or attitude difficult to define so sure to so objectiveand is like to make need hand science run a make patient which makes confident more results notoriously · can or posing experiment-power posing the power makes therapist the other on Psychophysicist aspect The - the variation of science science Hard measurable on we one , anxietyets- we all mean agree by we them on , so ② definition operational definitions There means - we variables Ex : - need hed procedures how be can operationalized to make vague concrete more seeing to be sad done measuring is difficult a movie makes observing by their cortisol them levels someone or but practice- in is a , Size sample Bigger - It ~ is better better is different - This will to collect data participants make representation interested in ④ this difficult to operationalize there complicated concepts psychologists spend lot time to operationalize the of trying definitions of the concepts we use . So it - ③ even of your sample the general a from many better population your well-controlled - variations should reflect interested in the property you're · approach Empirical philosophically scientifically we knowledge through want Wilhelm the coined the term to observe stuff founder of wundt introspection he - subjective rather just - he their ask give how - Freed even was & wrote his this they sa stimuli the same patients they felt that . a thing but medicine Then the they feel better would conclude that actually if that's an avid notes affected interpretation of so his say then But Freud the patient did to him lab subjective when did basically - patient might - interpret controlled the stimuli report feelings would and century first psych the certain Freud inte the in & asked his participants to use introspection & to & Sigmund senses evidence based : Locke John - : observable user his the of case . cocaine consultations recollection of his after his look better not the patients told him &Watson John Founder should only look at we - Little - the and how participants both - in to we can a go we can talus - - we So Iso he no John bit and now are processes Watson further reaction use people can applied we are taking place thinking said he than observable data only using - what to response be processes or measure eye out what participants are find out figure can brain measure movements or experiment of cognitive psychology field revolutionised the able to respond they conditioning animals & humans) Ulrich Neisser-Father he at observable data stimuli we give the Albert & the dog /the classical to - Behaviourism look we - of to we said respond that we intro (than watson) to see how times to stimuli to , infer long it internal processes do still need objective data or subj) and but use can reaction go further times method Scientific Initial observations psychologists try come up with (that proposed explanation to observed explanations a there an are a Hypothesis (predictions) then V we do research V collect data (observations & measurements) Analyse data use this to V - then we propose revise might more the Observations go scientific theory back to the explanations theory to , develop initial collect more take account observations, data and of the new Hypothesis · (not necessarily about the future) Prediction statement about what you expect - of way - - To be testing explanation an testable Scientifically (sad looking non-circular be - a theory hypothesis is description for sad) being Deal with observable - Falsifiable - · must be clearly defined operationalized be - , or (can be measurable not a good someone phenomena wrong) proved Theory - which A framework organizes data - They of consist - should contain should have are They trying should mechanism - - to Theories should by explanation of general principles for outlining understanding the data empirical investigation - our , and they guide explain have which an the should make be Falsifiable describing the facts explain explanation or differences effects predictions - can be and our definition/description information our you the proved fabe occur · Popper Karl he - claimed So - than he - can but to is · > - - good theory a trying to observation prove your refute enough to : prove theory wrong rather . observation of of of falsifiable right a conclusion" that has testable to be the conclusion that all allow the should them said "no amount A good' theory single - your swans black white white , are swan swans is single theory wrong . black one sufficient swan - hypothesis (predictions that can be proven and organize empirical findings supported (not verified) or refuted ↓ it's always better to strive for theories Guide research Be prove (not verification) Falsification - should him you false - (1934) to refute because it's more efficient experiments Flawed Famous but ⑦ Asch's Aim - (1951) investigate to : influence Results a it's time) extent to which social majority group could to person a conform participants conformed of 75 : : the from pressure - (child of Conformity Experiment at least On R Tor 8 selectthe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1IDhA actual any line people were told to while Born wrong line participants they checked - - population validity-this Lacks it's so respond - the There - the conform claimed So , - same were in if same Artificialask whether - unclear other trials) Swarthmore was of people types students) psych a biased sample will way . ecological validity low happen will many valid such more of textbooks don't report this % 95 (mostly is (65 % of prevalent pick conformed who all non-conformity but - had to a more a aspects of simple Psychology Research in is task messy - you question real life situation the research- just not as People do much as and hard to pin down ② Stanford The Experiment-Limbardo Prison (1971) explore the psychology of prison life and specific situations effect people's behaviour Aim : -to · how https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAX9b7agT90 Guards - - Prisoners vs Guards wear Stanford All students uniforms police rounded up culled bagged taken to the police station hosed down , deloused Then take to Stanford Psych Lab. 'prison' in the basement prisoners , , , . , of study - mean't was abandoned after the part on of 6 to run days the More - · Results : -Behaviour driven personality · Conclusions : cruel , had to be behaviour food revolt one is weeks . prisoners beg for than 2 due to guards Degradation Make for by situation not by verystrongly -Behaviour infue and how a attitudes several The of issues sample which with the size were - study 24 spare participants in case in total , some anyone dropped out himself steered-study & Zimbardo sale to assume famous to So it's sample - the . He . this if the results clear controlled conditions more (all Stanford bias guards were a and TV guards The and replication of the results the guards - This the Since was so , prisoners. on were increasingly paranoid stressed complained of being bullied The had it's done , prisoners undermined the in front own BBC limitations as it cameras . unable to replicate the original & it controversial that there were ethic committees put are we into place - and study in 2002 completely different . study was - became depressed by then the contrary conclusions . Reicher & Haslam - , . was BBC be the beforehand Enfact only There - would study and most of the guards did not any crut or unusual behaviour Zimbardo to one did acc to exhibit his the students) interviewed participants - admitted that even not in same study-o actively were steered the direction of results he wanted get , that in the controversial He become he wanted this results of cause actually the he took part to stop people So it's not clear draw from this be taken . seriously from running studies like this what the actual conclusions So . Cimbardo's results that we should not Why do research ? Example Research question 1 - their their look at do 4 - memory this Try can are want affect to to influence policy give people information their wee or ask collecting some want to data to so makers or who we they know how it memories explicit goal of experimental just differences who change might try cannabis you users people about between participants cannabis create to just who & understand and infor causation to We The - questionnaire cannabis how ask look at correlations not use Try 3 memory impairments ? memories Prediction 2 want to may simply feel of cause Through observation Description people Cannabis Does : research make understand a it. depends change on & others Why do I need we This Example The more the causation infer ? correlation co-variation showing to alone sufficient isn't to phat better is the health infants This is because at thetime top in hats richer people were and were able to take better of children care their ↳ tophalcase better a becaus he Example Number The have and what of they children are looks actually & IQ books of does children abject the IO not households with lots of more intelligent parents hence their There books number instead - of likely through genetics are examples of more books tend to as they read more confounding relation between two mediated by athird variable like of confounds a pass it onto to variables where variables is . So beware 2- - The 3- relationship Time order must cause Eliminate If other they possible effect of behaviour causes likely drinkers-more heavy are the before come a hewy more - to be canabis likely user to have memory problems If they are light drinkers - - Is rather than the so of the carer the drinking it possible the & problems eliminate to all a Unlikely to have memory problems cannabis memory to be canabisHer heavy - And Unlikely use , it being could be alternative causes experiments eliminate the most reasonable in alcohol consumption so select like participants who don't drink but there many No like the There's So to try so , situations you can't control participant being attacked we avoid won't to are nothing try ? we can we to this occur so do. as many won't getting stressed participants such instances more than So & will as be possible random & once make too much of a difference