Which Of The Following Is Not One Of The Three Funds

Which Of The Following Is Not One Of The Three Fund

This assignment involves identifying which of the listed questions and statements relate to fundamental concepts within psychological research, scientific methodology, and experimental design. The scope encompasses understanding core features of science, research methodologies, statistical measures, variables, theory development, measurement, validity, experimental controls, types of research, qualitative and quantitative data collection, survey design, APA style reporting, and ethical considerations in research.

To address this, I will provide a comprehensive and cohesive discussion that integrates key principles: the defining features of science and pseudoscience, sources of research questions, types of variables, interpretation of statistical measures like Pearson's r, experimental and correlational methods, variable relationships, validity, measurement, theory construction, research ethics, data collection methods, survey techniques, reporting standards, and research design choices. Additionally, I will discuss the philosophical distinctions between phenomena and theories, the role of frameworks and models, and guidelines for writing and reporting scientific research in APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

The foundation of scientific inquiry rests on its fundamental features, which distinguish scientific endeavors from pseudoscience. The three core features of science are empirical verification, systematic methodology, and falsifiability. Empirical verification entails that hypotheses must be testable through observation or experimentation. Systematic methodology requires structured, replicable procedures that ensure reliability and validity in findings. Falsifiability refers to the capacity of a hypothesis to be proven wrong through evidence, a critical aspect that separates science from non-scientific beliefs (Popper, 2002). When beliefs lack these features, they are considered pseudoscientific because they are not subjected to rigorous testing or falsification, thus undermining their scientific credibility.

Research questions in psychology originate from various sources, including theoretical frameworks, practical problems, observations, or gaps in existing literature. A well-formulated research question guides the entire empirical investigation, ensuring the study addresses a meaningful gap or hypothesis about human behavior or mental processes (Creswell, 2014). They often stem from observations of phenomena, prior research findings, or theoretical propositions seeking validation or refinement.

Variables, the fundamental elements of research, can be categorized as categorical or continuous. A categorical variable assigns observations to discrete groups or categories, such as gender, ethnicity, or type of treatment. In contrast, continuous variables, like height or weight, can take on any value within a range. Identifying the type of variable is crucial for choosing appropriate statistical analyses and interpreting results accurately (Field, 2013).

Statistical measures like Pearson’s r quantify the strength and direction of linear relationships between variables. For example, a correlation coefficient of –1.70 is invalid because Pearson’s r ranges from –1.0 to +1.0; such a value indicates a data entry or calculation error. A correct interpretation would be that a strong negative relationship exists if the coefficient is close to –1.0. Typically, Pearson’s r cannot exceed these bounds; values outside this range suggest mistakes or misinterpretation.

When seeking to establish a direct effect of Variable X on Variable Y, conducting an experiment with controlled conditions is optimal. Experimental designs manipulate the independent variable to observe causal effects on the dependent variable while controlling extraneous factors. Random assignment enhances internal validity by ensuring groups are equivalent at baseline, allowing researchers to infer causal relationships confidently (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).

The association between heights and weights of individuals exhibits a positive relationship—higher height generally correlates with higher weight—highlighting a predictable, direct association (Hastie, Tibshirani, & Friedman, 2009).

In a negative relationship, an increase in scores on one variable relates to a decrease in scores on the other, exemplified by variables like stress levels and sleep duration, where higher stress correlates with less sleep.

Contrary to some misconceptions, Pearson’s r can be negative, indicating an inverse relationship, with values ranging from –1.0 (perfect negative correlation) to +1.0 (perfect positive correlation). A negative r signifies that as one variable increases, the other decreases.

In Milgram’s obedience study, the confederate was the experimenter instructing participants to administer electric shocks, which played a role in psychological manipulation and ethical debates surrounding the study (Milgram, 1963).

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study involved researchers observing untreated syphilis in African American males without their informed consent, leading to ethical violations and a lasting impact on research ethics regulations (Jones, 1993).

Research evaluating the effectiveness of standard educational activities is categorized as nonexperimental because it involves observation without manipulation of variables (Babbie, 2010).

Measuring characteristics of potential participants to assess risk involves risk assessment or screening, aimed at protecting participants from harm during the research process.

The difference between phenomena and theories hinges on scope: phenomena refer to observable events or behaviors, while theories provide explanations and underlying principles that account for phenomena (Schunk, 2012).

A framework offers a structured, conceptual outline of how components relate within a field or subject area, whereas a theory provides specific hypotheses and mechanisms explaining observed phenomena (Bachman & Schutt, 2016).

For every phenomenon, multiple plausible explanations or hypotheses may exist, reflecting the complexity of human behavior and scientific inquiry (Cohen, 1988).

Every phenomenon generally has a set of potential explanations or theories, though not necessarily a single definitive one, highlighting the need for ongoing research and testing (Goodwin & Trudinger, 2015).

In evolutionary psychology, theories tend to adopt an adaptive perspective, explaining behaviors as evolved responses shaped by natural selection to solve problems faced by ancestors (Buss, 2015).

A behavior-explaining theory emphasizes the functional or adaptive reasons for why a behavior occurs, such as survival benefits, as opposed to solely describing the behavior itself.

Scientists use the hypothetico-deductive method—posing hypotheses and conducting systematic tests—to develop and evaluate theories, ensuring empirical validation and refinement (Lakatos, 1978).

The first step in constructing a new theory involves identifying gaps or inconsistencies in current understanding and formulating preliminary ideas or hypotheses for testing (Kuhn, 1962).

Measurement involves assigning numerical or categorical values to psychological constructs to facilitate analysis. It encompasses selecting appropriate tools and operational definitions that reflect the underlying construct (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

A construct is an abstract concept like intelligence, motivation, or self-esteem, which must be operationalized into measurable variables before empirical investigation (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).

Measuring a construct in different ways, or triangulation, enhances validity by ensuring that results are not solely dependent on a single measure, providing a more comprehensive assessment (Denzin, 1978).

Psychological constructs do not have a single, definitive measurement or operationalization; different measures can capture various aspects of the same construct.

Face validity assesses whether a measure appears to measure the intended construct based on superficial examination, an important but subjective criterion (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997).

A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .90 indicates excellent internal consistency, suggesting the items reliably measure the same underlying construct (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

Construct validity pertains to whether a measure accurately assesses the theoretical construct it purports to measure, while internal consistency pertains to the correlation among items within a measure (Campbell & Stanley, 1963).

Reliability refers to the consistency of scores over time or across multiple measurements, whereas validity concerns whether the instrument measures what it is intended to measure (Carmines & Zeller, 1979).

Direct observation involves perceiving characteristics or behaviors through senses, but some constructs require inferential or indirect measurements, highlighting the importance of measurement validity.

The key features of an experiment are manipulation of the independent variable and control of extraneous variables to establish causal relationships (Kirk, 2013).

Confounding variables threaten internal validity because they can provide alternative explanations for the observed effects, making it difficult to attribute changes solely to the independent variable (Shadish et al., 2002).

Random assignment mitigates confounding by distributing extraneous variables evenly across conditions, thereby supporting causal inferences (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

In a within-subjects design, a participant experiences all conditions, such as performing the task in both morning and evening, facilitating comparisons within individuals.

For a between-subjects design with 20 participants per condition and two conditions (quiet vs. noisy), a total of 40 participants are required, with each participant assigned to only one condition.

The main advantage of within-subjects designs lies in increased statistical power and control over individual differences, reducing error variance (Salkind, 2010).

In a complex within-subjects study measuring mental concentration across multiple conditions, potential problems include order effects and fatigue, which require counterbalancing or rest periods.

Experimenters manipulate independent variables and control extraneous variables to establish causal relationships, forming the core of experimental research (Shadish et al., 2002).

In a between-subjects experiment, each participant is assigned to a single condition, allowing comparison across independent groups.

Within-subjects experiments test each participant across multiple conditions, facilitating direct comparison and increasing statistical sensitivity.

Researcher Robert Rosenthal is renowned for his work on experimenter expectancy effects, demonstrating how researchers’ beliefs can influence participant responses and study outcomes (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).

Nonexperimental research is characterized by observation or correlation rather than manipulation, limiting causal inference but valuable for exploring relationships and natural phenomena (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000).

Reasons to conduct nonexperimental research include studying naturally occurring variables, ethical constraints, preliminary investigations, and generating hypotheses (Creswell, 2014).

Types of nonexperimental research include descriptive studies, correlational research, and observational studies, each providing insights without active manipulation of variables.

Correlational research examines the relationship between variables, quantifying the degree and direction of association through statistics like Pearson’s r (Levine & Hullett, 2002).

Coding participant behaviors is central to observational research, requiring reliable coding schemes and trained observers to ensure data accuracy (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986).

Archival data, such as historical records or existing datasets, are least useful in experimental or observational studies requiring real-time data collection but are valuable in secondary analysis (Campbell & Stanley, 1966).

Qualitative research aims to explore deeper understandings of phenomena, emphasizing context, meaning, and participant perspectives, often through interviews, case studies, and thematic analysis (Patton, 2002).

Common qualitative data collection methods include interviews, focus groups, participant observations, and document analysis, which yield rich narrative data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).

Data analysis in qualitative research involves thematic coding, content analysis, narrative analysis, and interpretive techniques to uncover patterns and themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

The main characteristics of survey research are standardized questions to gather self-reported data and a sampling procedure that aims to represent a population, allowing for generalizations (Fowler, 2014).

Open-ended items allow respondents to express themselves freely, providing detailed insights and rich qualitative information.

Closed-ended items limit responses to predefined options, facilitating quantitative analysis and comparison among respondents.

Random sampling, where each individual in the population has an equal chance of selection, enhances representativeness but is often challenging in practice. Approaching mall shoppers indiscriminately, however, does not necessarily constitute true random sampling.

Open-ended items are useful when exploring participants’ perspectives, experiences, or opinions that are not constrained by response choices, but they require more complex analysis.

The BRUSO model describes best practices for questionnaire design: being Brief, Relevant, Unambiguous, Specific, and Observable (Cohen, Swerlik, & Seroczynski, 2007).

Survey research often employs self-administered questionnaires, interviews, or online surveys, utilizing various question formats to gather data efficiently.

To minimize nonresponse bias, researchers can improve questionnaire design, follow-up with nonrespondents, and weight data to compensate for underrepresented groups (Pew Research Center, 2018).

The introduction of a survey questionnaire should clarify the purpose and assure confidentiality to encourage honest, complete responses.

APA style emphasizes rigorous standards of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and overall formatting in scientific writing to ensure clarity and uniformity (American Psychological Association, 2020).

An APA-style abstract is typically one paragraph, concise (about 150-250 words), summarizing key elements such as purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of the research (American Psychological Association, 2020).

The major sections of an empirical report in APA style are Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References, presented in that order (APA, 2020).

High-level APA writing is characterized by precision, clarity, conciseness, and objectivity, facilitating effective scientific communication.

Low-level APA rules involve specific formatting details like font size, margins, heading levels, and citation punctuation (American Psychological Association, 2020).

The title of an APA report should be concise, descriptive, and informative, reflecting the main focus of the study.

The literature review in an APA introduction contextualizes the research by summarizing relevant prior studies and identifying gaps or questions that motivate the current investigation.

In sum, thorough understanding and application of these fundamental principles underpin rigorous psychological research, effective communication, and ultimately, the advancement of scientific knowledge.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
• Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research. Cengage Learning.
• Bachman, L., & Schutt, R. K. (2016). Fundamentals of social work research: Methods, measurement, and analysis. Sage publications.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
• Cohen, J. (1988). The heuristics of social judgment. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1-36).
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
• Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGraw-Hill.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
• Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods. Sage publications.
• Goodwin, C. J., & Trudinger, P. A. (2015). Research methods for the social sciences. John Wiley & Sons.
• Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009). The elements of statistical learning. Springer.
• Keran, B., & Lee, R. M. (2000). The role of researcher-participant interaction in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 5(4), 1-20.
• Kirk, R. E. (2013). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Sage.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
• Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes. Cambridge University Press.
• Levine, R. A., & Hullett, C. R. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and related measures of effect size in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80(4), 377-381.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
• Pepper, M. (2018). Addressing nonresponse bias in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(4), 829-853.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.
• Popper, K. R. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
• Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. Urban Review, 3(1), 16-20.
• Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Pearson Higher Ed.
• Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
• Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's