Psychology 2017 Discussion 1 Chp 1 Research Methods

Psychology 2017 Discussion 1chp 1 Research Methodsactions For Chp 1

This topic is designed to strengthen your understanding of research methods used in social psychology. Start a thread and respond to the questions below with an original response.

1. Post an abstract of either a correlational study or an experiment. Ask the class to indicate which method it is. Give the reason why you think those who respond are either correct or incorrect.

2. What is the third variable? Give an example of how the third variable can be used to understand what appears to be a relationship between two unrelated variables.

3. Which is stronger: a correlation of .40 or a correlation of -.80? Explain.

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding research methods in social psychology is crucial for interpreting scientific findings accurately. This paper addresses the core questions presented: identifying research methods, understanding the third variable, and comparing the strength of correlations.

Abstract Analysis: Correlational Study vs. Experiment

Consider the following abstract: "This study examines the relationship between social media usage and feelings of loneliness among college students. Data collected via surveys indicates a significant positive correlation (r = 0.45) between hours spent on social media and reported loneliness levels." This abstract suggests a correlational study because it discusses a relationship between two variables, social media use and loneliness, measured through surveys without manipulating any variables. The key indicator is the use of correlation coefficient (r), which measures the strength and direction of a relationship but does not imply causation. In contrast, an experimental abstract would describe manipulating one variable (e.g., social media restrictions) to observe its effect on loneliness, allowing for causal inference. Recognizing the method relies on examining whether the study involves manipulation (experimental) or just measurement of variables (correlational).

The Third Variable and Its Role in Social Psychology

The third variable, also known as a confounding variable, is an extraneous factor that influences both variables under study, potentially creating a spurious relationship. For example, suppose studies find a correlation between ice cream sales and drowning incidents. At first, one might incorrectly conclude that ice cream sales cause drowning. However, the third variable here is temperature; warmer weather increases both ice cream consumption and swimming activity, which can lead to more drownings. Recognizing the third variable helps researchers better understand causality because it reveals alternative explanations for observed relationships. It emphasizes the importance of controlling for potential confounders in research to discern true causal links.

Strength of Correlation: Comparing r = 0.40 and r = -0.80

Correlation coefficients measure the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables. A correlation of 0.40 indicates a moderate positive relationship; as one variable increases, so does the other, but the relationship is not very strong. Conversely, a correlation of -0.80 signifies a strong negative relationship; as one variable increases, the other decreases significantly. Statistically, the magnitude of the coefficient reflects the strength, with higher absolute values indicating stronger relationships. Therefore, a correlation of -0.80 is stronger than 0.40 because it demonstrates a more consistent and predictable inverse relationship between the variables. The sign (positive or negative) indicates the direction, but the magnitude determines strength, making -0.80 considerably more impactful than 0.40.

Conclusion

In summary, understanding whether a study is correlational or experimental hinges on the methods used to gather data. The third variable often explains spurious relationships and highlights the importance of controlling extraneous factors. Finally, the strength of a correlation depends on its magnitude, with higher absolute values representing stronger relationships. These concepts are fundamental in social psychology research, allowing scientists to interpret data accurately and distinguish between mere associations and causal effects.

References

• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
• Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
• Gravetter, F., & Forzano, L. B. (2018). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Cengage.
• Myers, D. G. (2014). Psychology (10th ed.). Worth Publishers.
• Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Harcourt College Publishers.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Wasserman, L. (2004). All of statistics: A concise course in statistical inference. Springer.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
• Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple Spearman’s correction and an interval estimation for the correlation coefficient. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 499–504.