Stanovich 9-12 - Lecture notes 3 PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes on Ch9-12 of Stanovich textbook...

Description

CH 9 issue of multi causation Behave. multiply determined by no. of diff Vs - =/= over-interpret single causal connection

Multi. causation

Interaction - When effect of 2/> Vs not simply additive -

Not enough to know the factors b how they operate in presence of oth factors

Non-additive = strength of relat. btw X1 + Y dependent on value of X2

Pre-existing biases

-

Usually =/= single cause of part. behave. E.g. -ve relat. btw TV viewing + academic achievement b oth factors can impact academics

Vs explain small proportion of variability in behave. imp. 1. Relat. may have imp. theoretical implications 2. Relat. may have practical implications  particularly if V can be controlled (e.g. TV violence) If behave. imp = controlling small proportion – useful e.g. V reduce acts of phy violence/death in car accident 1% annually Multi. Vs impact another V - Series of expe. looking at diff possible causes - Multi-factorial designs (interaction) Magnitude of effect 1 V has may depend on lv of another V - Factor influencing behave. may have diff effects depending on presence/absence of oth factors - Cumulative risk factors = total risk of cert. event occur in given time period e.g. poor perinatal status (or not) + day-care program (or not) - Effect of day-care (or not) as function as whether kid pre-mature (or not) Assume only 1 cause as an explanation e.g. depression - Genetic propensity - Enviro. risk factors --- treat. of medication + psychotherapy (multi causes = multi-interventions) e.g. learning disabilities - brain anomalies - genetic component - poor home envir. ---- biological predisposition + enviro. causes

CH 10 probabilistic reasoning Probabilistic statement = Statement of certainty = Probabilistic reasoning - based on your group chara. = more likely exp X than diff group

By probabilistic trends = more likely than not b not true for all cases Relat. true for all cases Pred. of outcome based on group chara. = actuarial pred. e.g. women tend to have ↑ verbal skills than men -

Sample size

-

Gambler’s fallacy - tendency to fail to recognise role of chance in determining outcomes

-

-

tendency for single-case info overwhelm probabilistic reasoning tendency to overweigh (vivid) case info (clinical evi) + underweight base rate (statistical) info = cognitive illusion oth things being equal + larger sample size = accurately estimate pop. value o smaller sample = more extreme values o assumption that sample is representative of entire pop/entity tendency of peep see link btw past + future events when both independent events assume prev. outcome affect probability of next outcome

CH 11 role of chance in psy Randomness + chance - seek conceptual unde. = maladaptive when event takes place in envir. w/no pat + all randomness Biases + fallacies

Illusory corre.

Illusion of control - Believe their behave. deter random events Just world hypothesis - B4 accept complicated explanation of event = consider what part chance may have played in its occurrence Coincidence

brain = seek relat. + explanation + meaning of things - ⌘ seek explanation for randomness + chance events o E.g. coin toss Sit.  confirmation biases/vividness/fallacies  errors in judgement/illogical conclusions/irrationality - Believe 2 type of event commonly occur together = believe seeing co-occurrence w/ great frequency when 2 critical events occur randomly o E.g. prayer + recovery - Tendency to believe personal skill affect outcome determined by chance o E.g. choose lotto no. - Peep believe peeps get what they deserve o Ignore role of chance in favour to explain everything -

-

Actuarial pred.s - Not true for every case

-

Accept error to reduce error

-

Clinical v actuarial pred. - Clini = less accurate

-

-

Remarkable occurrence of related events due to chance Tend to seek pat. + meanings in events + elaborate theories to explain them Pred.s based on group trends derived f statistical records Pre. same outcome for all peep sharing cert. chara. o E.g. lifespan of 77yrs for non-smokers v 64yrs for smokers >1 “predictor variable” = more accurate pred. Give up hope of getting each trial right to achieve best predictive strategy (probabilistic) Clinical (case) pred. = mistaken belief clinical training  ‘intuitive’ ability to pre. treat. outcome of indi case (go beyond group [actuarial] pred. to make accurate pred. bout peep) Actuarial = are public (objective) + accept error to reduce error

CH 12 danger field of science Final word

Prob leading to inaccurate public perception of psy as scientific discipline Prob w/ “self-help” literature

Prob w/ “recipe knowledge”

Psy + media

Why we are our own worst enemies

Prob w/ implicit theories of behave.

1. Psy progresses by investigating solvable empirical probs 2. Psychologist propose falsifiable theories to explain findings 3. Concepts in theories = operationally defined + definitions evolve as evi accumulate 4. Theories tested by systematic empiricism + data obtained are public domain + presented in manner allowing replication & criticism by other scientists 5. Data + theories = public domain when publicised in peer-reviewed scientific journals 6. Empiricism = systematic cause strive for logic of control + manipulation that characterise a true expe. 7. Use diff meths to arrive to conclusion + strength & weakness of meths vary 8. Behavi. princi mostly probabilistic relat. 9. Knowledge acquired through slow accumulation of data f no. of experiments with flaws b converge on common conclusion - Prevalence of pseudoscience under banner of psy e.g. ESP - Public’s limited knowledge of psycho research + broad area of applicability - Testimonial evi - Misinterpret meth + goals of psy o Range of prob =/= reflect focus of contemporary psy b what peep want to read about - Knowledge of how to use sth w/o unde. fun. princi that govern its functioning - Most self-help literature = recipe knowledge w/o underlying theoretical knowledge - Gap btw ideas that are interest to science + appeal to mass - Media promote “magic bullet” thinking =/= cautious awareness of multiple causation (e.g. obesity) - Most researchers do little public communication - Antiscientific attitudes in some psychologists contribute to discipline’s image prob o Psychologists only be confident in actuarial predictions =/= “intuitive insight” - Don’t empirically validate implicit theories in systematic/controlled way - Can’t predict/unfalsifiable/mutually contradictory - Inbuilt biases + fallacies (e.g. confirmation bias/vividness)...