1. Personal experience

2. Intuition

3. Authority

4. Appeal to tradition, custom, faith

5. Magic, superstition & mysticism

(way of knowing)

experiencing something first hand

(way of knowing)

Believing something is true of false simply because it "makes sense"

(Way of knowing)

believing something because of our trust in the person who said it

(way of knowing)

believing something simply because most ppl in a society assume it is true or because it has always been done that way

(Way of knowing)

belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Appeals to tradition or authority apply under appeal to faith- religion

(way of knowing)

using the word "mystery" to explain the unexplainable

conducted to promote public access to knowledge "for the good of the world"

Shared with the public

a generalization about a phenomenon, an explanation of how or why something occurs.

Must be:

1. Explain: Clarify, make sense of and account for a subject matter

a. Theoretical Scope: boundaries of the theory- might explain many things or something specific

b. Validity: internally valid/consistent (free from contradiction) & externally valid (consistent with observed facts)

c. Simplicity/Parsimony: simple as possible

2. Prediction: informed guesses about what will occur and when

a. Focusing: attention on most important variables & expected outcomes

b. Observational Aid: a theory tells what to look for in variables and their effects

c. Open to Falsification: must be tested to determine if true or false

3. Control: Explanation and prediction allows control of phenomenon- produced and directed in meaningful ways

4. Heuristic: generates scholarly research

5. Communicative: Important focus for discussion and debate

6. Inspiration: Should address important meaningful concerns

any concept that can have two or more values.

Operational indicator of a concept by distinguishing a characteristic

Changes in it (DV) are dependent on changes in the other variable

Variable that is the outcome

"Needy One"

The thing that changes

Influence changes in another variable.

Does not change as a result of the manipulation.

Helps determine (or predict) the outcome of the dependent.

Causes change but doesn't change itself

the first reporting of a research study by the person(s) who actually conducted the study.

Newly created

Describes what a concept means by relating it to other abstract concepts

(given in dictionaries)

Describe the primary elements of the research topic being investigated

Describes a concept in terms of its observable and measurable characteristics or behaviors by specifying how the concept can be observed in actual practice

Rarely captures all the dimensions of sophisticated concepts

Must be:

Adequate- complete description of important dimensions

Accurate- valid universal

Clear- familiar terms- understanable

employ meaningful numerical indicators to ascertain the relative amount of something

ex: 20 pnds

Emply symbols (words, diagrams & nonmeaningful numbers) to indicate the meanings people have of something

ex. Heavy

AKA Categorical

Lowest level

Classifies a variable into different categories

Must have @ least 2 categories that are:

Exculsive- cant be in more than 1

Equivalent- equal in measure (not apples to oranges)

Exhaustive- Cover all options

Ex- gender, major etc

Classifies into categories then ranks demensions of variables

Arrange by value

Don't know "how much" better (difference between 2) but one is better than the other

Ex- Rank order, Gold silver bronze, class ranking 

Categorizes & ranks but also establishes equal distances between each point along the scale

Standard equal distances between variables

postive or negative values

Arbitrary zero point

Ex. Temperature

(Type of interval scale)

identifies the extent of a persons beliefs attitudes or feelings toward some object (strongly agree/ disagree)

5 or 7 points

1 (strongly agree) 2(agree) 3(neutral) 4(disagree) 5 (strongly disagree)

(Type of interval scale)

Measures the meanings people give to a stimulus

gives polar opposites of ADJECTIVES to describe

Happy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sad

(highest level)

Catergorize and rank order with equal intervals but also establishes an absolute true zero point

Only 1 clear answer

No negatives

ex. Ages, number of ___ read, Number of times, number of days

1 concept- set of indicators that can be added together to derive a single, overall score

o   All concepts in study were alike

o   Ensure all items are reliable

o   For a “score,” just add them all up

o   Ex: rainbow—if you take out red, it’s just red, no longer a rainbow

Incorporate more than one factor and must be measure by more than one set of scale items

o   Different subconcepts grouped together

o   Answer on one factor does not influence other

o   Ensure items in “factor” are reliable

§  Ex: m&ms, take one out and it’s still a m&m

(Measurement method)

measures target characteristics/behaviors- comment on yourself- not always accurate

PPL may lies or can't correctly say why they do things

(Measurement method)

Asking ppl to describe other ppl in sufficient observations to draw conclusion

Not very accurate

ex. How often does she watch this show?

(Measurement method)

Observing a person's behavior believed to be most accurate- doesn't show beliefs or feelings

Where the $ is at

(Measurement Technique)

Presentation of written questions to envoke responses

Large Scale

Most widely used

(Measurement Technique)

Presentation of spoken questions

Closed v open questions openended etc

(Measurement Technique)

systematic inspection and interpretation of behavioral phenomenon

Ethics plays a role

strategic sequence of queries on questionnaires and interviews (3 common formats: tunnel, funnel, inverted funnel)

Tunnel- respondents are asked a straight series of similarly organized questions
Funnel- broad, open questions are used to introduce the questionnaire, followed by narrower closed questions
Inverted funnel- opposite of funnel, begins with narrow, ends with broad (use with very personal topics)

Accuracy of the conclusions drawn from a particular study

Asks whether a research study is designed and conducted such that it leads to accurate findings for the particular group studied.

Generalizability of the findings from a research study

Asks whether the conclusions can be applied to other ppl/places/times

Conclusions not limited to the particular ppl/place/time

how well researchers measure what the intend to measure-

The closer the data reflects the observable characteristics= more valid

Measuring something in a consistent and stable manner

dependable b/c leads to same outcomes when applied to different ppl/txts, contexts or time

•  
  • Reliable or consistent information has deviation/ error
  • Assessed by a numerical indicator from  0-1.00

•  
  • How  the research is conducted
  • Effects due to the research participants
  • Effects due to the researcher

•  
  • Sampling- how people/texts studied were selected
  • Ecological validity- whether procedures used mirror real life
  • Need to replicate research findings
  • Measurement Validity and Reliability

Observe measurement = True Score + Error Score

 ^                           

Random Error                        Measurement Error

•  
  • True score component-

the actual score (if researchers could measure something  perfectly)

Cannot happen

•  
  • Error score component (E)-

amount of deviation from the true value

random (accidental/chance) error- uncontrolled factors and is assumed to equal out over time; measurement error-faulty measurement procedures under the researcher’s control

•  
  • Pilot study

provides numerical indicator that tells the percentage of time a measurement is reliable or free of error

•  
  •  
    • Range- 0% (no consistency)- 100% (perfect consistency)
    • Recommended 70% level of acceptability but various from different tests

1.  
   1.  
      1.  
         1. Test-rest method-
         2. Measurement Reliability Techniques
            

administers same measurement procedure to the same group of people at different times

•  
  •  
    •  
      •  
        • Coefficient of stability- usually .70 (70%) or greater
        • Ex. Oliver study and the sad films scale (tested once and then again later on)
        • Longer the interval for re-testing the less consistent results will be, the shorter the interval for re-testing the more consistent results will be

1. 1. 1. Alternative procedure method-

Measurement Reliability Techniques

having same people complete another equivalent instrument at the second administration     

Helps control respondents becoming familiar with the test instrument Coefficient of equivalence- statistically comparing scores on two different instruments Needs reliable and valid alternative instrument

Measurement Reliability Techniques

extent to which items on a measurement instrument give similar results

Boosting the Reliability of Measurement Instruments

Agreement coefficient-

the relation of each single item to the rest of the instrument

Used to find items that make the instrument less reliable, so items can be dropped

Boosting the Reliability of Measurement Instruments

interobserver/interrater/intercoder reliability

•  
  • Content validity-

based on logical or conceptual validity (items that reflects the concept being investigated)

1.  
   1.  
      1.  
         1. Weakest argument

•  
  •  
    • Panel approach-

1.  
   1.  
      1.  
         1. concurrent (convergent) validity-

when results of a new measurement instrument agree with those from an existing known-to-be valid criterion

a new instrument should have accurate results than a current instrument, or if a criterion (experts) group should score high on the new instrument

how well a measurement instrument predicts an outcome

1.  
   1.  
      1.  
         1.  
            1. ex. Sending SAT scores to a university

when scores on measurement instruments are related in logical ways to other established measures

•  
  •  
    • ex. Measuring cognitive complexity with Crockett’s Role Category Questionnaire (RCQ)

Threats due to:

How reaserch is conducted

Research Participants

Reasearchers

• Threats Due to How Research Is Conducted

Procedure validity and reliability

-conducting research accurately and consistently

Aspects:
Administering accurate measurement techniques in a consistent manner

treatment validity and reliability- making sure treatment study is investigating is what it purports to be every time it’s administered

manipulation checks-how researchers check if treatments are valid and reliable

controlling for environmental influences- keeping setting of study as consistent as possible

Threats due to how research is conducted

History

Changes in the environment external to a study that influence peoples beahvior

Important in longitudinal research

Threats due to how research is conducted

Sleeper effect

Threats due to how research is conducted

Sensitization(testing, practices effects, pretest sensitizing)-

ntention for an initial measurement in a study to influence a subsequent measurement

1.  
   1.  
      1.  
         1. People may become “test-wise” on the second test after taking the first test (pre-test)

• Threats Due to Research Participants
  • Hawthorne effect-

behavior due to primarily the fact the people know they’re being observed

•  
  •  
    • Mayo, Roethlisberger, and Dickson Study(Hawthorne effect study)- effects of the amount of light in a room on worker productivity
    • Possible control methods- not telling people they’re being studied, or not recording them until after they’re accustomed to observers

Threats due to research participants

•  
  • Selection-

choosing people/texts for a study

Self-bias selection-when researchers compare groups that have been formed by people who have chosen their own group

Threats due to research participants

•  
  • Statistical regression( regression toward the mean/regression effect/artifact)-

tendency for individuals or groups selected on the basis of extreme scores to have less extreme scores the second time with the same instrument

Only a few teams have won the Super Bowl twice in a row

•  
  •  
    • May lead to:

1.  
   1.  
      1.  
         1. ceiling effect- when people chosen because of upper limit scores, hard to tell if treatment actually worked
         1. floor (basement) effect- when people chosen beca

Threats Due to Research Participants

Morality (Attrition)

loss of participants from beginning to end of study

•  
  •  
    • More important to longitudinal studies

Threats due to participants

Maturation

Threats due to Participants

Interparticipant bias

when people being studied influence one another

•  
  •  
    • Copying the people you see in the group during the study
    • Diffusion of treatment(diffusion effect)- when participants influence potential participants by sharing the studies treatment

Threats Due to Researcher

Researcher personal attribute effect

when particular characteristics of a researcher influence people’s behavior

•  
  •  
    • Barber says- respondent’s answers are affected by researchers’ race, gender, age, etc…
    • Possible control methods- having many different research assistants

Threats due to researcher

Researcher unintentional expectance effect (Rosenthal/ Pygmalion effect)

researchers inadvertently let participants know the response they desire

•  
  •  
    • Usually cued by unintentional body language (this behavior is referred to as demand characteristics)
    • Avoided by employing “blind” research assistant- one that does not know the purpose of the research or following standard procedure the same way with each participant

Threats due to researcher

•  
  • Researcher observational biases-

when researchers observe participants and produce inaccuracies during the observational process

•  
  •  
    • observer drift- inconsistent criteria used to make and record observations
    • observer bias- observer’s knowledge of research influences their observations
    • halo effect- observer makes multiple judgments on the same person over time and overrates participant’s performance because participant did well

EXTERNAL VALIDITY

Sampling

population (universe when talking about text)

choosing every nth person from a list of a population starting at a random point

sampling rate- interval used to choose every nth person

periodicity- if every nth person of a population shared the same characteristic the other do not, causing bias

categorizes a population with respect to a characteristic a researcher says to be important and samples randomly from each sample

stratification variable- characteristic researcher considers to be

importantstrata (stratum)- subgroup of a population represented in a sample

proportional stratified random sample- categories randomly selected in proportion to their representation in the population

incidence- the frequency with which respondents can be obtained from stratified populations

andomly selecting units (clusters)

multistage sampling- selecting a sample in two or more stages in which successively smaller clusters are picked randomly

Respondents are asked to refer a researcher to other respondents

AKA Snowball technique

research that describes what actually happened in real-life circumstances

•  
  • Can increase by observing behavior in natural settings
  • Confederate- a person who pretends to be a research participant to help a researcher

• Replication-

conducting a study that repeats or duplicated in some systematic manner a previous study

Types:
Exact replication- duplicates study as closely as possible with exception of studying different research participants

Partial replication-duplicates previous study by changing on procedure and keeping the other procedures the same

Conceptual replication- examines the same issue of a past study but uses different procedures, measurements, techniques, etc…

multiple replications of a previous study

1.  
   1.  
      1.  
         1. If any studies successful, helps determine which one is and isn’t valid (original or replica)

Moral principles and recognized rules of conduct governing the activities of researchers.

Moral principles- apply to all human conduct

Recognized rules- agreement that certain behaviors are ethically acceptable/unacceptable when conducting research

A form of debriefing in which research participants may need help coping with negative information they may have acquire about themselves as a result of a research study.

exists when researchers cannot connect responses to the individuals who provided them,such as when self-administered, anonymous questionnaires are completed by research participants

        -preferable when possible; shown to encourage greater group member participation, promote the forwarding of more creative ideas, allows members to discuss sensitive issues, including their feelings towards other group members, and produce perceived higher quality products

McCombs & Shaw (1972)

Agenda-setting theory says media doesn’t tell us what to think, but what to think about

Coombs (1998)

Crisis Communication Strategies (CCS) run on a continuum (p181)

Accommodative

·      Image repair

·      Use when in the wrong

Defensive

·      Deny or minimize

·      Less effective when in the wrong

External control and personal control factors cause crises

Method=experiment

Hallahan (1999)

Framing looks at central organizing theme in media coverage

method=content analysis

How is this useful for practitioners?

·      Give the message to the reporter already framed

Excellence Theory

Developed by James Grunig

Emphasizes two-way symmetrical communication

How is this applicable to practitioners?

·      An organization should have 2-way comm.- listen to publics and make changes as applicable

Relationship Management

Identified by Ferguson, explicated by Ledingham

Examines relationship building

Some constructs: human voice, customer service, among others

How can this benefit practitioners?

·      Customer loyalty

Nuremberg Code

·       Informed consent is essential.

·       Research on human subjects should be based on prior animal work.

·       The risks should be justified by the anticipated benefits.

·       Only qualified scientists should be allowed to conduct research with human subjects.

·       Physical and mental suffering must be avoided.

·       Research in which death or disabling injury is expected should not be conducted.

Beecher Article

 describing 22 examples of research studies with controversial ethics. These studies were conducted by reputable medical researchers and published in major journals. Beecher wrote, "medicine is sound, and most progress is soundly attained;" However, if unethical research is allowed to proceed it will "do great harm to medicine."

Beecher's article played an important role in heightening the awareness of researchers, the public, and the press to the problem of unethical human subjects research

The Public Health Service Syphilis Study (1932-1972)

 frequently referred to as the "Tuskeegee Syphilis Study"  . Initiated and funded by the PHS, this study was designed as a natural study of the course of syphilis in African-Americans. At the time the study began there was no known safe and effective treatment. Hundreds of men who did not know they had syphilis and hundreds of men without syphilis (serving as controls) were enrolled into the study. The men were recruited without their fully informed consent. They were deliberately misinformed about the need for some of the procedures.

 Ethical problems: lack of informed consent, deception, withholding information, withholding available treatment, putting men and their families at risk, exploitation of a vulnerable group of subjects who would not benefit from participation.

Wichita Jury Case (1953)

In this study researchers tape-recorded jurors' private deliberations in six courtroom trials to measure the influence that attorney comments have on subsequent jury decision making. The judge and attorneys knew the research was being conducted, but the jurors did not, so as not to bias their behavior. The tapes were played at a law conference and the study was reported in a local newspaper. The resulting concern that the possibility of future taping could have a repressive effect on future juror deliberations resulted in a 1956 federal law banning all recording of jury proceedings.

Ethical problems: Compromising the integrity of important social institutions, lack of informed consent, invasion of privacy.

Milgram's "Obedience to Authority Study" (1963)

The purpose of this study was to learn more about how humans respond when given instructions from people in positions of authority. The researchers informed study volunteers that the purpose of the research was to study learning and memory. Each subject was told to teach a "student" and to punish the students' errors by administering increasing levels of electric shock. The "students" were confederates of the researcher and were never actually harmed. The "students" pretended to be poor learners. They mimicked pain and even unconsciousness as the subjects increased the levels of electric shock. Sixty-three percent of the subjects administered what they thought were lethal shocks; some did so even after the "student" claimed to have heart disease. Some of the subjects, after being "debriefed" from the study, experienced serious emotional crises.

Ethical Problems: Deception, unanticipated psychological harms.

Allen's “Nazi Seizure of Power Study” (1965)

In his study “The Nazi Seizure of Power; the Experience of a Single German Town, 1922-1945,”,first published in 1965, William Sheridan Allen interviewed residents of a town in Germany about their lives during Hitler's rise to power. He made a commitment of confidentiality with regard to the names of his informants and of the town and used pseudonyms for the town and individuals when writing a book based on the interviews. After the book was subsequently translated into German, based on the information provided and additional investigative journalism, a German magazine was able to determine the real name of the town and the identities of many of Allen's narrators and published the information in an article.

Ethical Problems: Failure to maintain adequate confidentiality to protect against deductive disclosure of identity by others with additional information.

Humphreys' "Tea Room Trade" (1970)

In this study the researcher observed homosexual practices in public restrooms. The researcher went undercover as a homosexual and gained the confidence of the men by acting as a "look out." The researcher identified 100 active subjects by tracing their car license numbers. A year after he completed the observational portion of his study, the researcher disguised his appearance and in the communities where he knew the subjects lived interviewed some of the "tearoom regulars" in their own homes. He used a social health survey collecting data about their sexual orientation and marital status. Interviews were sometimes conducted in the presence of wives and children. At no time did he tell them anything about the relationship of the interview to the prior observational work.

Though the publication of the book based on the dissertation may have been helpful in dispelling some stereotypes, the report had sufficient detail that the identities of some of the participants were obvious to them and their families.

Ethical problems: Invasion of privacy, use of a vulnerable population, lack of informed consent, failure to protect against deductive disclosure of identity.

Zimbardo "Simulated Prison" (1973)

This landmark psychological study of the human response to captivity and, in particular, prison life, involved assigning roles to normal male student volunteers to create groups of "prisoners" and "guards." The research became so intense, as physical and psychological abuse of "prisoners" by "guards" escalated, that several of the subjects experienced distress less than 36 hours after the study began. Dr. Philip Zimbardo, the researcher, did not stop the experiment/simulation until six days had passed. See Dr. Zimbardo's web site for more details on this study.

Ethical problems: Harm to subjects, lack of neutrality of researcher.

Restaurant Letter Study (2001)

It is important to note that not all the events that raise concerns about research ethics in both biomedical and social and behavioral research occurred before the 1974 congressional hearings. In 2001, a faculty member from the business school of a major university designed a study to see how restaurants would respond to complaints from putative customers. As part of the project, the researcher sent letters to restaurants falsely claiming that he and/or his wife had suffered food poisoning that ruined their anniversary celebration. The letters disclaimed any intention of contacting regulatory agencies and stated that the only intent was to convey to the owner what had occurred "in anticipation that you will respond accordingly." Restaurant owners were understandably upset and some employees lost their jobs before it was revealed that the letter was a hoax. The researcher later admitted the falsehood in a letter of apology to each restaurant. The study had not been submitted to an IRB for review. An investigation by the Federal Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) followed. In addition, the restaurants filed a lawsuit against the university.

Ethical problems: Deception, lack of informed consent, infliction of emotional distress.

The Belmont Report

a statement of the basic ethical principles and guidelines to be used to resolve the ethical problems that surround the conduct of research with human subjects.

The Belmont Report identifies three basic ethical principles for conducting research with human subjects. These principles are commonly called the Belmont Principles. The Belmont Principles are respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

Respect for Persons

• Informed consent will be sought from each prospective participant or the participant’s legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by the regulations.
• Informed consent will be appropriately documented in accordance with, and to the extent required by the regulations.
• When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of participants.

When some or all of the participants are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these participants.

Beneficence

• Risks to participants are minimized by using procedures that are consistent with sound research design and that do not unnecessarily expose participants to risk.
• Risks to participants are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to participants, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result.
• Risks to participants are minimized whenever appropriate, by using procedures already being performed on the participants for other purposes.
• When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of participants.
• When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to maintain the confidentiality of data.

Justice

• Selection of participants is equitable.

Research Eligible for Exemption

1.     Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices.

2.     Research involving survey procedures, interview procedures, or observation of public behavior providing that any disclosure of identifiable information outside the research setting would not place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation.

NOTE: If Subpart D applies, either by sponsor requirement or institutional choice, the following activities with children cannot be exempt: interviews, surveys, and participant observation.

3.     Research involving the collection or study of existing data (collected prior to the research for purposes other than the research) if the data are publicly available or recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the subjects cannot be identified.

1. Pose no more than minimal risk to subjects.
   
   "No more than minimal risk" means that "the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests."

2. Consist only of one or more research activities specified in the regulations as eligible for expedited review.  Eligible activities are similar to those for exempt research (some surveys, interviews, and data analysis) with the addition of some minor or non-invasive medical procedures, such as blood pressure readings, weight measurements, and blood draws that are used occasionally by researchers in the social and behavioral sciences.

Authority of the Institutional Review Board

Federal regulations stipulate that an IRB can:

• Approve research.
• Disapprove research.
• Require modifications to proposed research.
• Conduct continuing reviews.
• Observe/verify changes.
• Suspend or terminate approval.

Observe the consent process and the research procedures

Certificates of Confidentiality are issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to protect identifiable research information from compelled disclosure. Certificates of Confidentiality may be obtained for any research, regardless of funding.

Certificates of Confidentiality may be granted for studies collecting information that, if disclosed, could have adverse consequences for subjects or damage their financial standing, employability, insurability, or reputation.

A Certificate of Confidentiality will allow the researcher, and others who have access to research records, to be protected from required disclosure of identifying information on research participants in

·       Civil,

·       Criminal,

·       Administrative,

·       Legislative, or

·       Other proceedings, whether at the federal, state, or local level.

The kinds of information that can be protected include:

·       Substance abuse or other illegal behaviors

·       Sexual attitudes, preferences, or practices

·       Genetic information

·       Psychological health.