CHAPTER 1

● Producers:
○ perform and publish research studies
● Consumers:
○ read and learn about research studies
● evidence-based treatments
○ Therapies that are supported by research
● Scared Straight (what did the story about this program help to illustrate?)
○ It made intuitive sense that they would be scared into good behavior but in
reality these programs only caused an increase in criminal behavior.
● cupboard theory vs. contact comfort theory (which theory did the Harlow
experiment results support?)
○ Harlow’s experiment supported contact comfort theory: hunger hsa little to
do with the attachment to the caregiver. The physical contact provides
comfort which is the source of the attachment
● theories vs. hypotheses
○ Theory: set of statements that describes general principles about how
variables relate to one another
○ Hypothesis: prediction, is the specific outcome the researcher expects to
observe in a study if the theory is accurate.
● Falsifiability
○ A theory must lead to hypotheses that, when tested, could actually fail to
support the theory
● and parsimony
○ Theories are supposed to be simple. If two theories explain the data
equally well, opt for the simpler, more parsimonious theory
● Do researchers say that they have "proved" their theories after conducting an
experiment? Why or why not?
○ No, theories do not prove anything. The data only supports, or is
consistent with the theory.
● the difference between scientific journals and journalism
○ Articles in scientific journals are peer-reviewed.
CHAPTER 2

● Two main problems with relying on personal experience to draw conclusions

○ No comparison group and unavoidable confounds. Your personal experience will
often conflict with research. This is not a reason to believe that the general trend
is not true. Research findings are probabilistic: they explain what is likely to
happen, not what always happens.
● Intuition
○ We are often swayed by a good story. Ie beyond scared straight
○ Being swayed by what easily comes to mind. Ie availability heuristic
○ Failing to think about what we cannot see. Ie present/present bias
○ Focusing on the evidence we like best. Ie confirmation bias
○ Biased about being biased. Ie bias blind spot
● Case study of the failures of experience and intuition: The history of radical mastectomy
○ •1890s: surgeons believed best treatment for breast cancer was radical
mastectomy
○ •1970s: first large randomized clinical trial
■ •Simple mastectomy found to be equally effective
○ What had the surgeons been relying on?
■ •Personal experience of surgeons and their patients
● •No comparison group; literally!
■ •Intuition
● •Good story
● •Present/present bias
● •Confirmation bias
● Bloodletting example: why Dr. Rush's beliefs were flawed
● confounds; how does systematic, empirical research control for these?
● the key question to ask when evaluating information from authorities
○ What is the basis of their claim? Personal experience? Intuition? Research? Does
it seem like they have the appropriate knowledge to assess this research?
● empirical journal articles vs. review journal articles vs. meta-analyses
● how to evaluate psychology books at a bookstore
 ● benefits and drawbacks of wikis and popular media

●
● What can we do?
○ •Be critical, but not cynical.
○ •First: Does it seem unbelievable? Then wait a second before you believe it.
○ •Check the motivation.
■ •Is someone trying to sell you something?
■ •Is the writer motivated by politics?
■ •How neutral is the publisher?
○ •Check the original article mentioned in the popular news article
■ •Is it accurately represented?
■ •Was it a good study? (you’ll gain the skills to determine this yourself!)

PRISONERS OF SILENCE

● What theory did supporters of facilitated communication originally have about how it
worked? Think about their theory. Does it demonstrate parsimony? Was it falsifiable?
Was it supported by data?
○ Claimed that most autistic people are not “retarted” but have intelligent minds
imprisoned in bad bodies.
● What are the arguments that some proponents of FC made about why the experiments
must have been flawed, even in the face of the overwhelming experimental evidence?
○ The sentences were produced with perfect grammar and vocabulary that did not
seem to fit with the age of the kids. People began to think that the facilitators were
the ones actually producing the sentences.
● Why do you think they were so resistant to incorporate this new information into their
beliefs? Does it remind you of any concepts you learned in Intro Psych?
● Which aspects of the multiple experiments allowed researchers to be confident in their
results? In other words, what elements of careful experimental control were present?
● What do you think are the primary reasons that no one who was using FC seemed to
question it?
○ It was a good story, it spread quickly and many believed it without too much
thought because they had no reason not to.
● What were all of the factors at stake when FC was being tested? Why was this important
to test at all?
● The only words recorded were the ones the facilitator saw. The individuals with autism
are not looking at the keyboard when they type.

●
CHAPTER 3

● understand and be able to identify variables, levels, and constants

○ A Variable is something that varies, so it must have at least two levels or values
○ A constant is something that could potentially vary but that has only one level in
the study in question
● measured vs. manipulated variables
○ A measured variable is one whose levels are simply observed and recorded
(height, IQ, gender, hair color)
○ A manipulated variable is a variable a research controls, usually by assigning
study participants to the different levels of that variable (different amount of
milligrams of medication)
● What are some examples of variables that cannot be manipulated?
○ Age, IQ, (can’t assign people to be older but can measure what age they already
are)
○ high/low quality school (unethical to purposely assign kids to a low quality school)
● conceptual variables/constructs and how they relate to operational definitions (Table 3.1
is really helpful for this and all of the above)

○ Conceptual variables are abstract concepts, such as “spending time socializing”

and “social achievement:”. A conceptual variable is also called a construct. They
must be carefully defined at the theoretical level and these definitions are called
conceptual definitions.
○ Operational definitions of variables (aka operational variables or
operationalizations) are created when researchers test their hypotheses with
empirical research. To operationalize means to turn a concept of interest into a
measured or manipulated variable.

○
● frequency claims, association claims, and causal claims: know what they are and how
many variables are involved in each
○ A claim is an argument someone is trying to make. Frequency claims describe a
particular rate or degree of a single variable
 ○ Association claims argue that one level of a variable is likely to be associated
with a particular level of another variable. Variables that are associated are
sometimes said to correlate, or covary, meaning that when one variable changes
the other variable tends to change too. I.e. at least two variables related.
○ The type of study in which the variables are measured and the relationship
between them is tested, is called a correlational study.
○ Causal claims argue that one of the variables is responsible for changing the
other. Two variables.
● positive vs. negative vs. zero association (this is hopefully review from Stats)
○ Positive association/correlation: high goes with high, low goes with low
○ Negative association/correlation: high goes with low, low goes with high
○ Zero association/correlation: no association between the variables
● association claims vs. causal claims
○ Association: there is a relationship
○ Causal: one causes the other
● how can you analyze the different verbs used to determine which type of claim is being
made? (see Table 3.3)

○
● Validity refers to the appropriateness of a conclusion or decision. A valid claim is
reasonable, accurate, and justifiable.
● construct validity
○ Refers to how well a conceptual variable is operationalized. How well the
researchers measured/manipulated their variables.
● external validity
○ Generalizability: how did the researchers choose the study’s participants, and
how well do those particiaptns represent the intended population.
○ How well the results of a study generalize to, or represent, people or contexts
besides those in the original study.
● statistical validity
○ The extent to which a study’s statistical conclusions are accurate and
reasonable. How well do the numbers support the claim?
● margin of error of the estimate
 ○ The percentage reported in a frequency claim is accompanied by a MofE. this is
a statistical figure based on the sample size for the study that attempts to include
the true value in the population

○
● Type I error vs. Type II error (Stats review!)

●
○ Type 1: false positive: think there is an association when there is not one
○ Type 2: miss: do not think there is an association when there is one
● three criteria for causation: covariance, temporal precedence, and internal validity
○ Covariance: the extent to which two variables are observed to go together, is
determined by the result of a study
○ Temporal precedence: the variable comes first in time, before the other variable
○ Internal validity: only causal (third-variable criterion) an indication of a study;s
ability to eliminate alternative explanations for the association
● independent variable vs. dependent variable (Stats review!)
○ IV: the manipulated variable
○ DV: the measured variable
● random assignment
○ Each individual in the population has an equal chance of being selected, and
experiment groups are as similar as possible.
● understand how the three claims are related to the four validities (Table 3.5)

●
●