Psy 102 assignment 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

RESEARCH METHODS ASSIGNMENT TWO PSY 102...

Description

PSY 102 - Assignment 2 Ruling out rival hypothesis: !

The principle of ruling out the rival hypothesis in scientific thinking simply states that, for a study to be suc-

cessful in all psychological aspects, it must explain alternative explanations for a phenomenon. Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, Cramer, and Schmaltz (2015) state that an experimenter should not conclude an experiment without considering the alternatives in a case. As per the reading, the article of “IsoDark Deprivation Tanks linked to better mental health outcomes” by IsoDark LLC, does not do a good job of ruling out the rival hypothesis because there is an alternative explanation for one of their larger claims. The article states that the study began in the early stages of the pandemic; back when restrictions were in place, masks were introduced, and people had to stay indoors to ensure maximum safety. The study ended in October, when majority of Canadians were vaccinated and lockdown restrictions were lifted. The article claims that the increase of overall health scores at the end of the study in participants was because of the use of the deprivation tank. Howbeit, it fails to consider that the improvement in peoples mental health may have been swayed because they were getting back into routine with their old lives. The article even states that at the end of October, life had started feeling “normal” again (IsoDark, LLC) for these participants. During the beginning of the growing virus, many people held anxious and depressed thoughts owing to the fact that they felt secluded, and feared their safety. Yet as time went on, and more precautions were put in place, people ought to be more at ease knowing they were greatly safeguarded. This change of negative feelings to a increase in mental health scores could have been associated with the decrease in the pandemic all along, yet the article fails to mention the pandemic itself as a rival hypothesis, nor does it rule it out of the equation, making it skeptical to believe the change in participants mental stability was associated with the tanks.The article could have eliminated the rival hypothesis by measuring the participants mental health in a more stable time frame; so the pandemic and its sways could play no role in the participates lives. This way, the study would be more reliable. The measure of mental health in this experiment would be in direct relation to the tank, with no ties to the pandemic’s effects. Shifting the time frame of the experiment, so it would start in October, when “life started to feel normal” down to the following year March would be more ideal. This way, participants would start the experiment when the pandemic was already stabilized, therefore ruling it out as a rival hypothesis. Correlation vs. Causation: !

The principle of scientific thinking of correlation vs causation states that in a study, many conclude that one

variable can cause the other because they may have an association. As is explained in the “Psychology, from inquiry to understanding, Edition 2”, a known variable (a) may cause the consequent (b); but it may also be possible that the two have nothing to do with each other, and a third factor may be affiliated with both. (Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, Cramer, and Schmaltz, 2015). The reason why the article does not do an effective job of ruling out correlation vs causation is because it automatically assumed a causal connection between the two variables studied. In the study, the author linked the reduction of mental health problems to the usage of the tank deprivation; however, there is no evidence presented proving the casual connection. By believing this without evidence, correlational-causation fallacy would be

PSY 102 ASSIGNMENT 2!

!

1

committed. Just because the use of the tank occurred before the improvement in participants mental health, does not necessarily mean that the improvement of mental health is caused by the use of the tank. As Dr. Paul stated in the lecture videos, it is important to distinguish when an author is making grand statements from causalities. (Paul, 2021) The way the article can rule out correlation/causation would be to have a control group. Having a control group in this study would further enhance the possibility that the deprivation tank imposed the improvement in mental health because it has a standard to be compared to. The improvement in mental health can be measured by comparing the mental health progress of the group who did not receive the tank, to the group that did receive the tank. This would also help eliminate other variables and conclude that the upbringing of emotional health was because of the product. Flaws in research: Lack of control group: !

The first research issue explained is the lack of a control group. To simplify, as Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy,

Cramer, and Schmaltz, (2015) affirm that a control group is the group that does not receive manipulation in an experiment. There are also the group participants are being compared to in order to measure the efficiency of the variable. The article had 10,000 participants who were the manipulated group, yet had no neutral group that the differences could be compared to. In order for the study to be efficient, only one variable, which is the use of the tank, would have to be manipulated between TWO groups. This allows the researcher to confirm that the results of the participant group are directly related to the variable.To simplify, if there was a control group, it would have been more efficient to measure the changes in mental health in direct correspondence to the product. What the article could have done to improve the lack of control group is add one in. The researcher could amend the study to randomly assign its participants to 2 groups, and then have 1 half receive the product while the other does not. With time, the 2 groups results would be recorded to measure the effectiveness of the product. It is important to note that the participants should also be random so the results are not altered by bias from the participant. Flaws in research: Unrepresentative samples: !

The second research issue that was flawed in this study is unrepresentative samples. This issue is more con-

cerned with the participants in a specific study. It focuses on the diversity of a study group, in areas such as wealth, political values, education, etc. As Dr. Paul states in his lecture videos, these groups are referred to as the “W.E.I.R.D” group; that is, western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (Paul, 2021). Essentially, an unrepresentative research method is trying to conclude if the specific study can speak for the general public. Is those who are being studied a true reflection of everyone in society? Could the results apply to everyone? The issue in regards to this study is that the participants were indeed unrepresentative. As stated in the first page of the article, the 10,000 participants were all from high-income families. Therefore, the results concluded was a true representation of only part of society. This study can not be used to directly reflect society because it is unrepresented in the analysis. One way the study can improve with respect to this method method is regroup the participants. This time, have a more diverse group partake in the study to have a wider range of society included. To make the study more generalized (validate the study sample to the whole population), IsoDark should have included those with lower income, maybe even no income if they could be reached, those educated, and those not, as well as participants from different regions.

PSY 102 ASSIGNMENT 2!

!

2

Citation: Lilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., Namy, L.L., Cramer, K.M. & Schmaltz, R. (2015). Psychology: From inquiry to understanding. 2nd Canadian edition. Toronto, ON: Pearson. Paul, B. T. (2021, November). Lecture 2: Research Methods. Psychology 102: Introduction to Psychology I. Virtual Lecture conducted from Ryerson University, Toronto, ON.

PSY 102 ASSIGNMENT 2!

!

3...