EMSA 1A REVISION 1. The Scientific Method Beer goggles effect - The phenomenon where drinking too much alcohol makes people attracted to someone they would not normally be attracted to when sober Empiricism - We can claim this theory exists as it seems obvious (because alcohol impairs decision making) But there are findings that are counter intuitive: The Empirical Method - gathering data through experience and interpreting this (derived from the senses and observation) Limitations to empiricism: . We are bad at observing without preconceptions . We do not understand random events (gamblers fallacy) The Hypothetico-Deductive Method - From observations we use generalisable rules to generate a theory, based on this we provide a hypothesis, we can then produce a research prediction and test the theory, finally we modify the theory based on data found The Beer Goggles Study was conducted by Barry et al. (2003) Study - rated faces following alcohol or no alcohol. Faces were rated as more attractive following alcohol but only for opposite sex We should be tentative with findings (flexible with testing hypothesis) - if data does not fit into our theory, we need to amend our theory. There is always an alternative explanation, so we can never claim something. Falsification - finding evidence against a hypothesis is important (takes only one hit) Parsimony - the simplest explanation is the preferred one Quantification - taking human behaviour and coding it numerically Variance - assessing differences within our sample. Variables are things that change and can be categorical or continuous Reification - treating hypothetical constructs as real Operationalised variables should be reliable and valid Reliability - if you test the same people in similar circumstances, you should get the same results (test-retest reliability) Validity - your measure assesses the thing that it is purported to measure Confounding variables - uncontrolled variables that may provide an alternative explanation. You must randomly assign people to conditions to prevent this
True Experiment - · Have control over variables · Random allocation · Remove chance of confounding variables . Measure effects of IV on the DV · Isolate cause and effect It can be achieved in both the lab and field Advantages of between-participants design - · Less likely to guess the manipulation · Do not produce order effects · Do not need to produce more stimuli Disadvantages of between-participants design - · Individual differences · Need more participants Advantages of within-participants design - · No individual differences · Need less participants Disadvantages of within-participants design - · More likely to guess the manipulation · Produce order effects · Non-equivalent stimuli Counterbalancing - occurs with within-participants design. ABBA method, to reduce order effects Asymmetric transfer - occurs as a result of counterbalancing. E.g. A is easy and B is difficult. Asymmetric transfer is a type of interference. The group doing an easy A task may achieve the basis knowledge in order to find the more difficult B task easier. The group doing a difficult B task first may not have