A.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES

The hallmark of experimental studies is control. Researchers attempt to control the independent
variable and any potentially problematic third variables rather than simply observing them as they occur
naturally.

HUMAN LABORATORY STUDIES

To test our hypothesis that stress leads to depression, we could expose participants to a stressor in the
laboratory and then determine whether it causes an increase in depressed mood. This method is known
as a human laboratory study.

 We want to ensure that our experiment has internal validity, meaning that changes in the
dependent variable can confidently be attributed to our manipulation of the independent
variable and not to other factors.
o To control third variables, researchers create a control group or control condition, in
which participants have all the same experiences as the group of main interest in the
study except that they do not receive the key manipulation
 The control group for our study could be given similar but solvable anagrams.
Thus, the control group's experience would be identical to that of the other
group - the experimental group or experimental condition - except for
receiving the unsolvable puzzles.
o Another threat to internal validity can arise if the participants in the experimental group
and in the control group differ in important ways before beginning the experiment.
Hence, random assignment is done.
o Yet another threat to internal validity is the presence of demand characteristics -
situations that cause participants to guess the purpose of the study and thus change
their behavior.
 To avoid the presence of demand characteristics, we could use subtler measures
of depression embedded in other tests - often called filler measures - to
obscure the real purpose of our study.
 Researchers also often use cover stories, telling participants a false story to
prevent them from guessing the true purpose of the experiment.
 In order to reduce these demand characteristics, both the participants and the
experimenters who interact with them should be unaware of whether
participants are in the experimental condition or the control condition called
double-blind experiment.

The primary advantage of human laboratory studies is control.

 Researchers have more control over third variables, the independent variable, and the
dependent variable in these studies than they do in any other type of study they can do with
humans

Yet human laboratory studies also have their limitations.

 Because we cannot know if our results generalize to what happens outside the laboratory, their
external validity can be low
 o Experimental studies such as this have been criticized for their lack of generalizability to
major psychopathologies that occurs in real life.
 Apart from posing problems of generalizability, human laboratory studies sometimes pose
serious ethical concerns

THERAPY OUTCOME STUDIES

Therapy outcome studies are experimental studies designed to test whether a specific therapy reduces
psychopathology in individuals who receive it.

 Sometimes, people simply get better with time.

o Thus, we need to compare the experiences of people who receive our experimental
therapy with those of a control group made up of people who do not receive the
therapy to see whether our participants' improvement actually anything has to do with
our therapy. (For example,)
o Participants who do not receive the experimental therapy but are tracked for the same
period as the participants who do receive the therapy
 A variation is the wait list control group. The participants in this type of group
do not receive the therapy when the experimental group does but instead are
put on a wait list to receive the intervention at a later date, when the study is
completed.
 Both groups of participants are assessed at the beginning and end of the study,
but only the experimental group receives the therapy as part of the study.
o Another type of control group, the placebo control group, is used most often in studies
of the effectiveness of drugs.

 Most psychological therapies involve a package of techniques for responding to people's

problems.
o Even when a therapy works, researchers often cannot know exactly what it is about the
therapy that works.
 Ethical problems arise in using all three types of control groups - simple control groups, wait list
control groups, and placebo control groups - in therapy outcome research.
o Some researchers believe it is unethical to withhold treatment or to provide a treatment
believed to be ineffective for people in distress

In response to this concern, many therapy outcome studies now compare the effectiveness of two or
more therapies expected to have positive effects.

Another ethical issue concerns the obligation of the therapist to respond to the needs of the patient

 Therapists may feel the need to vary the dosage of a drug or to deviate from a study's procedure
for psychological intervention.
 A related methodological issue has to do with generalizing results from therapy outcome studies
to the real world.

Therapy outcome research that tests how well a therapy works in highly controlled settings with a
narrowly defined group of people is said to test the efficacy of a therapy. In contrast, therapy outcome
research that tests how well a therapy works in real-world settings, with all the complications
mentioned, is said to test the effectiveness of a therapy.

SINGLE-CASE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS

 Unlike the case studies discussed earlier, a single-case experimental design exposes the
individual to some manipulation or intervention, and his or her behavior is examined before and
after the intervention to determine the effects.
 In addition, in a single-case experimental design, the participant's behaviors are measured
repeatedly over time through some standard method, whereas a case study often is based on
the researcher's impressions of the participant.

A specific type of single-case experimental design is the ABAB, or reversal design, in which an
intervention is assessed (A), introduced (B), withdrawn (A), and then reinstated (B) and the behavior of
the participant is examined both on and off the treatment

In a multiple baseline design, an intervention might be given to the same individual but in different
settings, or to different individuals at different points in time

A major advantage of single-case experimental designs is that they allow much more intensive
assessment of participants than might be possible if there were more participants

The major disadvantage is that their results may not be generalizable to the wider population.

ANIMAL STUDIES

 Animal studies thus provide researchers with even more control over laboratory conditions and
third variables than is possible in human laboratory studies.
 However, there clearly are problems with animal studies.
o First, some people believe it is no more ethical to conduct painful, dangerous, or fatal
experiments with animals than it is to do so with humans.
o Second, from a scientific vantage point, we must ask whether we can generalize the
results of experiments with animals to humans.
o

B. GENETIC STUDIES

FAMILY HISTORY STUDIES

 To conduct a family history study, scientists first identify people who clearly have the disorder
in question. This group is called the probands.
 The researchers also identify a control group of people who clearly do not have the disorder.
 They then trace the family pedigrees, or family trees, of individuals in these two groups and
determine how many of their relatives have the disorder.
 Researchers are most interested in first-degree relatives, such as full siblings, parents, or
children.
 Although family history studies provide very useful information, they have their problems
because families share not only genes but also environment.

TWIN STUDIES
Identical twins, or monozygotic (MZ) twins, share 100 percent of their genes. In contrast, nonidentical
twins, or dizygotic (DZ) twins, share, on average, 50 percent of their genes

 If a disorder is determined entirely by genetics, then when one member of a monozygotic (MZ)
twin pair has a disorder, the other member of the pair should always have the disorder. This
probability that both twins will have the disorder if one twin has it is called the concordance
rate for the disorder.

ADOPTION STUDIES

 Most commonly, researchers first identify people who have the disorder of interest who were
adopted shortly after birth.
 They then determine the rates of the disorder in the biological relatives of these adoptees and
in the adoptive relatives of the adoptees.
o If a disorder is strongly influenced by genetics, researchers should see higher rates of
the disorder among the biological relatives of the adoptee than among the adoptive
relatives.
o If the disorder is strongly influenced by environment, they should see higher rates of the
disorder among the adoptive relatives than among the biological relatives.

MOLECULAR GENETIC STUDIES AND LINKAGE ANALYSES

The technology for examining human genes has advanced rapidly in recent decades, allowing
researchers to search for associations between specific genetic abnormalities (also referred to as genetic
markers) and psychopathology in what are called molecular genetic studies or association studies

 DNA from individuals in both groups is obtained either through blood samples or by swabbing
the inside of the individuals' cheeks to obtain a small amount of tissue.

Because the human genome is so vast, researchers may try to narrow down the location of the gene
marker associated with a psychological disorder by looking for other characteristics that co-occur with
the disorder and have known genetic markers, a process called linkage analysis.

C. CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH

Cross-cultural researchers’ special challenges:

 First, researchers must be careful in applying theories or concepts that were developed in
studies of one culture to another culture.
o Because the manifestations of disorders can differ, and theoretical variables can have
different meanings or manifestations
 Second, even if researchers believe they can apply their theories across cultures, they may have
difficulty translating their questionnaires or other assessment tools into different languages.
 Third, there may be cultural or gender differences in people's responses to the social demands
of interacting with researchers.
 If researchers do not take biases into account when they design assessment tools and analyze
data, erroneous conclusions can result.
D. META-ANALYSIS

Meta-analysis is a statistical technique for summarizing results across several studies.

 The first step in a meta-analysis is to do a thorough literature search, usually with the help of
computer search engines that will identify all studies containing certain keywords.
 Often, studies use different methods and measures for testing a hypothesis, so the second step
of a meta-analysis is to transform the results of each study into a statistic common across all the
studies.
o This statistic, called the effect size, indicates how big the differences are between two
groups (such as a group that received a specific form of therapy and one that did not) or
how strong the relationship is between two continuous variables (such as the
correlation between levels of stress and levels of depression).
o Researchers can then examine the average effect size across studies and relate the
effect size to characteristics of the study, such as the year it was published, the type of
measure used, or the age or gender of the participants.

Meta-analysis can overcome some of the problems resulting from small numbers of participants in an
individual study by pooling the data from thousands of study participants, thereby providing more
power to find significant effects.

Meta-analyses have their problems, however.

 First, some published studies have methodological flaws.

o These flawed studies may be included in a meta-analysis along with methodologically
stronger studies, influencing the overall results
 Second, there is a file drawer effect - studies that do not support the hypothesis they are
designed to test are less likely to get published than studies that do.

Thank you!