RESEARCH DESIGN
Spring 2018
|
Class Information |
Instructor Information |
|
PSYCH 6002 |
Helen C. Harton, Ph.D. |
|
Bartlett 34 |
Bartlett 2080 |
|
W 12-2:45 pm |
273-2235; harton@uni.edu |
Office Hours: M 3-4; WF 11-11:50
Readings:
You’ll have several articles
and/or chapters to read each week. Some may be a review, whereas others may
require three readings to fully understand them. Readings will come from your
textbook and peer-reviewed journals, as well as other online sources, including
blog posts and podcasts. I’ve linked to the readings for your convenience. You
may have to be logged in to the UNI system in order for some links to work.
It’s also possible that some links may no longer be live in a couple of months.
In any case, you should be able to easily locate the articles.
Trochim, W., & Donnelly, J. P. (2007). The research methods knowledge base (3rd
ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing. (most of this book should be a
review)
Course Description and Objectives: Research is at the heart of psychology; psychology’s
focus on research and empirical evidence is one of the things that
differentiate the field from other similar disciplines. In this course, you’ll
learn about the basics of research and current trends in the field, explore
several “hot topics” or newer methods in psychology, and become a better
designer, describer, and critical reader of research. The course is designed to
give you a breadth of knowledge on research design in psychology and to
facilitate your future research career and thesis progress. This is an exciting
time to be learning about methods in psychology! There are lots of current
changes and controversies in methods and statistics, and we’ll discuss many of
those in class.
By the end of this course, you
should:
1) know the advantages and
disadvantages of the commonly used methods in psychology and when to best apply
them;
2) know the advantages and
disadvantages of several newer methodologies in psychology;
3) be able to critique and
integrate previous research;
4) be more aware of ethical
concerns in research and how to deal with them;
5) be a better scientific
writer;
6) be a better consumer of
research;
7) be able to design and carry
out your own research project; and
8) have made significant
progress on your thesis.
Resources to help you learn more about methods and do better research: As I noted before, right now is
a very exciting (and sometimes scary) time for those interested in psychological
methods. To learn more about current issues, I suggest that you subscribe to
Facebook groups and/or blogs that deal with some of these issues. Here are some
options:
Psychological Methods
Discussion Group in Facebook
Personality psychology meta-blog
Psychological
Methods Blog Feed
If you’re into podcasts, check
out The Black Goat, for
entertaining discussions of methodical issues by three young psychologists
heavily involved in the Open Science movement.
There are also psychologists
interested in these issues who are really active on Twitter and who have active
blogs.
In addition, there are websites
that you may find useful:
http://statcheck.io/
– you can upload your paper here to have it automatically check whether your
analyses match your p-levels. Very easy to use and helpful!
https://osf.io/view/studyswap/
--website of people looking for or offering help with studies. Great way to get
collaborators from other regions/countries
http://curatescience.org/ -- searchable
table of replications in social and cognitive psychology
There are many others like
these—these are just some I’ve used.
Course Format: Each week you will have several readings that you should have processed
and thought about before class. In class, we will discuss the readings and the
issues they bring up. You should contribute thoughtfully to the discussion and
build on and gently challenge the comments of other students. I will sometimes
provide background information for a topic, but this is not a lecture class.
Course Requirements: There are several types of assignments in this class. Each are designed
to help you understand research methods in psychology better, apply and
critique methods better, and/or to progress on your thesis. I don’t assign
things as busywork. It takes me a long time to read and provide feedback on
your work, and I’m not going to do that unless I believe you’ll benefit.
Practicing concepts through multiple, smaller assignments helps you to retain
information (e.g., Lang, 2016). This course is a lot of work, but it’s a
foundational course that will be important to your future as a psychologist (or
general consumer of information). It will also help you immensely on your
thesis.
Discussion 18%
Thought papers 12%
Method presentation 4%
Method assignments 8% (see breakdown by assignment
in that section)
Proposal assignments 8% (see breakdown by assignment
in that section)
Proposal 30%
Proposal presentation 10%
Final exam 10%
Class discussion (18%). In graduate school especially, you learn not only from books and professors, but from interactions and discussions with peers. Discussing information also helps you to think about it more deeply and learn it more quickly. You are expected to contribute meaningfully to class discussions. While mere attendance is not enough to get a good grade for this component, it is imperative in that you can’t participate if you’re not here. Obviously, it also requires that you read and think about the readings. Both frequency and quality count. You will get graded on discussion each week; you can drop your lowest score. If we don’t get an adequate amount of participation from everyone, I reserve the right to add weekly quizzes. This is your class—take it seriously and share your thoughts. I look forward to learning from our discussions.
Thought papers (12%). Each week you’ll also be asked to email me a short (1-2 pages) thought paper addressing the readings for the week. These emails should have “thought paper” in the subject line and be sent by midnight Monday nights (just paste it in the message instead of attaching it). You should address each of the readings to some extent in your paper, although you may sometimes want to mainly focus on one or another. You want to show me that you’ve read, understood, and carefully processed the readings for the week. Think about how these readings relate to your thesis; bring up questions you have; relate the readings to other things you know. The purpose of these assignments is to get you thinking more deeply about the method and its application to your research and to facilitate in-class discussion. You want to go beyond just summarizing the readings, though you may do some of that as well. You can drop your lowest thought paper score. If you turn in one the first week of classes, you can drop your lowest two.
Discussion and thought papers will be graded on the following scale:
0 = not there
2 = attended but didn’t participate, or turned in, but not very relevant (below average)
3 = comments or questions relevant, but didn’t involve much insight (average)
4 = comments or questions relevant and insightful (good)
5 = more than one comment or question showed a significant contribution (excellent)
Method presentation (4%). You will also present on a particular method or “hot topic.” For your topic presentation, you should have at least four references—two of these should be sources discussing the method itself (advantages and disadvantages) and two should be articles that used the method. In your presentation, you should a) describe the method; b) explain how it is used in psychology; c) talk about considerations, advantages, disadvantages, best practices etc.; d) describe and critique at least 2 studies that used the method (e.g., Did they use the method well? Should they have done something else? Why was it a good method for this question?). For some topics, I have particular questions or articles that I would like for you to use in your presentation. It is your responsibility to set up a brief meeting with me at least 1 week before your presentation to make sure you are clear on what the method is and that you have the sources you need. Presentations should be 10-15 minutes (including time for questions) and include your references in your final slide. Send me a copy of your Powerpoints before the presentation. Go to https://docs.google.com/a/uni.edu/spreadsheets/d/1F0njBwJNJJUKkzSFppHcV2hXewdu6HdvArhhl42pH20/edit?usp=sharing to sign up for a topic and time. NOTE: You have to do this from your UNI google account.
Method assignments (8%). There are six methods assignments due throughout the semester. Two of these involve computer applications of things you’ll need to do for your thesis. I will have some office hours in the lab to help you with these assignments. The other four assignments ask you to analyze an article of your choice (related to your thesis or paper in this class) and will reinforce concepts discussed in class.
Proposal Assignments (8%). In addition to the weekly thought papers, you will turn in several assignments directly related to your research proposal (i.e., topic, articles, outlines, rough draft) and provide feedback on a peer’s draft. These assignments encourage you to not wait until the last minute on your paper. They also provide you with feedback as you go along. When you turn in your final revised paper, you need to add 2-3 paragraphs (separate document) explaining how you addressed the feedback given to you by your peer. The breakdown of these assignments and how they relate to your grade (and their due dates) are as follows:
Topic 5% Jan. 17
References 10% Jan. 31
Outline 20% Feb. 21
Complete proposal 20% Apr. 9 (You will get 20% if this is a complete, turn-in-able draft ONLY)
Comments on peer’s paper 25% Apr. 12
Ethics appendix 10% Apr. 18
Reliability and validity app. 10% Apr. 18
Research proposal (30%). One of the best ways to show that you understand research design is by applying it. You will submit a complete research proposal (7-8 page introduction, complete method section, including a design section and appendices with measures, plan of analysis section, discussion of expected results/what it would mean if you didn’t find them, in APA style). You should also add appendices addressing 1) ethical considerations related to your study; and 2) reliability and validity (internal, external, and construct) in your study. You will likely be uploading the papers into Blackboard so they can be run through turnitin.com.
I highly recommend that you make
this paper your thesis proposal. If you don’t want to do that for some reason,
that’s okay, but talk to me first. There will be assignments due during the
semester to provide you with feedback on this paper (e.g., outlines, rough
drafts). If this is your thesis proposal, then you should be getting feedback
from your thesis supervisor as you go as well. That’s fine. You want to
incorporate feedback from wherever you get it (including the class, your thesis
supervisor and possibly committee, me, and your peer reviewer). However—this
paper should not be a paper that you have written or are writing for another
class or for another (nonthesis) project with a faculty member. If there is any
question about whether it might be too collaborative or too close to something
you’ve already done, talk to me before
you get started to see if it is acceptable. The paper should be in excellent
APA style. Those that aren’t, will be returned ungraded and lose at least 1
letter grade (1 if turned in with corrected APA style—no other corrections
allowed--within 24 hours, -1 more for each day after).
Proposal presentation (10%).
You will present your proposal to the class (background, method, expected
results, what they would mean, etc.). Your presentation, which should include
some audio-visual effects (e.g., PowerPoint), should last no more than 12
minutes, followed by a discussion of the proposal by the class (we will play
the role of thesis committee). You can (and should) integrate any helpful
comments from the class into your proposal before you turn it in. You’ll be
graded on presentation style as well as knowledge about the area. Go to https://docs.google.com/a/uni.edu/spreadsheets/d/1x114d88abnP3uTT5oGZ6YUAMVwOfPT254zLwNdDU5bg/edit?usp=sharing
to sign up for a presentation time.
NOTE: You have to do this from your UNI google account.
Final exam (10%). In the exam, you will use information you learned from throughout the semester to a) design a study and answer questions about it; and b) critique an article/study.
Makeup and Late Paper Policies: Class discussion grades cannot be made up. I will
accept one thought paper up to 24 hours late with no penalty, and one methods
assignment up to 48 hours late with no penalty. Proposals will be accepted up
to three days past the due date, but one letter grade will be deducted for each
day until they are turned in. Plan ahead and don’t wait until the last minute
to finish (or start) the paper, in case something unexpected arises. No makeups
allowed for the exam except in extreme circumstances (e.g., illness, familial
death). If you’re having problems with due dates, talk to me.
Academic Honesty Policy: Cheating and plagiarism of any kind will not be
tolerated and will result in a 0 on the assignment in question. This includes
using a paper from another class to fulfill a requirement in this class as well
as using quotes from materials without attribution, even in short assignments,
thought papers, or tests. For more
information on UNI’s academic honesty policies, see UNI’s Student Academic Ethics Policy.
If you have any questions about what is acceptable, ask.
Disability Services: The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
provides protection from illegal discrimination for qualified individuals with
disabilities. Students requesting instructional accommodations due to
disabilities must arrange for such accommodation through the Office of Disability
Services. The ODS is located at 213 Student Services Center, and the phone
number is 273-2676.
CLASS SCHEDULE
Jan.
10—Introduction to problems and solutions
T&D, Chapter 1
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why
summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66, 195-244.
doi:10.2466/PR0.66.1
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing:
Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196-217.
doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J. & Simonsohn, U. (2018).
Psychology’s
renaissance. Annual Review of
Psychology, 69. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836
Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2013). Six
guidelines for interesting research. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 8, 549-553. doi:10.1177/1745691613497967
Lindsay, D. S., Simons, D. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O.
(2016, December). Preregistration
101. APS Observer, Retrieved
from:
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/research-preregistration-101
Optional:
Nelson, L, Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2017,
November 6). How to properly preregister a
study. Data Colada, 64. Retrieved
from: http://datacolada.org/64
Bakker, M. van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012).
The
rules of the game called psychological science, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543-554.
doi:10.1177/1745691612459060
Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception
in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics & Behavior, 18, 59-92.
doi:10.1080/10508420701712990
Becker-Blease, K. A., & Freyd, J. J. (2006). Research
participants telling the truth about their lives: The ethics of asking and not
asking about abuse. American
Psychologist, 61, 218-226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.218
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U.
(2011). False-positive
psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows
presenting anything as significant. Psychological
Science, 22, 1359-1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific
utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over
publishability. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 7, 615-631. doi:10.1177/1745691612459058
Topic due for proposal. Turn in a paragraph or
so describing what you plan to do for your proposal in this course.
T&D Chapter 2
Henrich, J. Heine, S. J., &
Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people
in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
33, 61-83. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
(just the article itself—you don’t have to read all the commentaries, though
you might want to skim some)
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Gelman, A., & Carlin, J. (2014). Beyond
power calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9,
1-11. doi:10.1177/1745691614551642
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017).
Constraints
on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Online first. doi:10.1177/1745691617708630
Optional:
Anderson, S. F., Kelley, K., & Maxwell, S. E.
(2017). Sample-size
planning for more accurate statistical power: A method adjusting sample effect
sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science, 28, 1547-1562. doi:10.1177/0956797617723724
For when you might need them:
New ways to approach power in papers: https://approachingblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/new-policies-at-jesp-for-2018-the-why-and-how/
Cross-cultural research presentation—When is cross-cultural research most useful? What
particular things do researchers need to keep in mind? What are best practices?
T&D Chapters 3 and 5
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff,
N. P. (2012). Sources
of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control
it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Westfall, J., & Yarkoni, T. (2016). Statistically
controlling for confounding constructs in harder than you think. PLoS ONE, 11, e0152719.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152719
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of
coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350-353.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350
Methods assignment #1 due: Power
analysis and reliability. I will be available in the lab from 3-4 on
January 24 for people who want help with the assignment.
Proposal references due. Find 10 articles for your research proposal for this
class and submit an APA style reference section. If they are not in near-perfect
APA style, they will be returned ungraded, and you will get a 0 on the
assignment. Put the tentative title of
your proposal at the top of the references section.
T&D Chapter 4
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing
data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549-576.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
Curran, P. G. (2016). Methods
for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
66, 4-19. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp2015.07.006
Zhang, X., Kuchinke, L., Woud, M. L., Velten, J.,
Margraf, J. (2017). Survey
method matters: Online/offline questionnaires and face-to-face or telephone
interviews differ. Computers in Human
Behavior, 71, 172-180. doi:10.1016/J.CBH.2017.02.006
Beretta, J. (n.d.). Top
ten common problems in designing effective survey questions. Satrix Solutions. Retrieved from:
http://www.satrixsolutions.com/blog/top-ten-common-problems-designing-effective-survey-questions/
Harrison, C. (2007, November 17). Tip
sheet on question wording. Harvard
University Program on Survey Research. Retrieved from:
https://psr.iq.harvard.edu/files/psr/files/PSRQuestionnaireTipSheet_0.pdf
Pew Research Center. (n.d.) Questionnaire
design. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/u-s-survey-research/questionnaire-design/
Experience
sampling/daily diary presentation—Include
information on the variety of experience sampling methods and how they are
analyzed.
Methods
assignment #2 due: Scale development
T&D Chapters 7 and 9
Bless, H., & Burger, A. M. (2016). A closer
look at social psychologists’ silver bullet: Inevitable and evitable side effects
of the experimental approach. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 11, 296-308. doi:10.1177/1745691615621278
Mitchell, G. (2012). Revisiting
truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the psychological
laboratory. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 7, 109-117. doi:10.1177/1745691611432343
Zhou, H., & Fishbach, A. (2016). The pitfall of
experimenting on the web: How unattended selective attrition leads to
surprising (yet false) research conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 493-504.
doi:10.1037/pspa0000056
Judd, C. M, Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Muller, D. (2014). Mediation
and moderation. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd
ed., pp. 653-676). New York:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511996481.030
Optional:
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Placebo presentation—What are placebo effects and what causes them? What are best practices
in placebo research?
Feb. 21—Quasi and field experiments
T&D Chapters 10 and 11
Shadish, W. R., & Cook, T. D. (2009). The
Renaissance of field experimentation in evaluating interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 607-629.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163544
Goodvin, R., & Lee, S. C. (2017). Promises and pitfalls
of evidence-based policymaking: Observations from a nonpartisan legislative
policy research institute. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 23, 490-502. doi:10.1037/law0000145
Parigil, P. Santana, J. J., & Cook, K. S. (2017). Online
field experiments: Studying social interactions in context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 80, 1-19.
doi:10.1177/0190272516680842
Small n
designs presentation –What types of
small n designs are often used in psychology? What are their advantages and
disadvantages?
Proposal
outline due. Turn in a complete and
detailed outline of your entire proposal (introduction, method, results, and discussion).
Include your tentative title at the top, and use good outline form. Outlines
will be graded on organization, completeness, and use of good outlining
techniques (e.g., at least 2 headings at each level, headings in similar
format). This outline should facilitate your writing of your proposal.
T&D Chapters 12 and 14
Lakens, D. (2017, December 5). Understanding
common misconceptions about p-values. The
20% statistician. Retrieved from:
http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2017/12/understanding-common-misconceptions.html
Cumming, G. (2014). The new
statistics: Why and how. Psychological
Science, 25, 7-29. doi:10.1177/0956797613504966
Morey, R. D., Hoekstra, R., Rouder, J. N., Lee, M. D.,
& Wagenmakers, E. J. (2016). The fallacy
of placing confidence in confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, 103-123.
doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0947-8
Sakaluk, J. K, (2016). Exploring
small, confirming big: An alternative system to the new statistics for
advancing cumulative and replicable psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
66, 47-54. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.013
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M.,
Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E. J., Berk R.,…Johnson, V. E. (2017). Redefine statistical
significance. Nature Human Behavior.
doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
Presentations
by E. J. Wagenmaker, D. Lakens, and S. Vazire at 2017 BITSS conference.
They are discussing whether we should make .005 the “significant” p-level (see
reading above). Watch the presentations from :32 to 1:09. You may also want to
watch the Q & A session, which goes to 1:40.
Optional:
Dienes, Z., & McLatchie, N. (2017). Four reasons
to prefer Bayesian analyses over significance testing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-017-1266-z
March
7—Replication and generalizability
Vedantam, S., & Penman, M. (2016, May 24). When
great minds think unalike: Inside science’s “replication crisis.” Hidden Brain podcast, National Public
Radio. Retrieved from: https://www.npr.org/2016/05/24/477921050/when-great-minds-think-unlike-inside-sciences-replication-crisis
LeBel, E. P., & Peters, K. R. (2011). Fearing
the future of empirical psychology: Bem’s (2011) evidence of psi as a case
study of deficiencies in modal research practice. Review of General Psychology, 15, 371-379. doi:10.1037/a0025172
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating
the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.
doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
Patil, P., Peng, R. D., & Leek, J. T. (2016). What should
researchers expect when they replicate studies? A statistical review of
replicability in psychological science. Perspectives
in Psychological Science, 11, 539-544. doi:10.1177/1745691616646366
Simonsohn, U. (2016, March 3). Evaluating replications: 40% full >< 60%
empty. Data Colada, 47. Retrieved
from: http://datacolada.org/47
Tackett, J. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J.,
Johnson, S. L., Krueger, R. F., Miller, J. D.,…Shrout, P. E.. (2017). It’s time to broaden the
replicability conversation: Thoughts for and from clinical psychological
science. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 12, 742-756. doi:10.1177/17456916176900042
Methods assignment #3 due: Data
cleaning and basic analyses. I will be in the lab March 6 from 11:30-1 if
you want help.
March
21--Meta-analysis and evaluation
T&D Chapter 16
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to
do a meta-analysis. British Journal
of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665-694.
doi:10.1348/000711010X502733
van Elk, M., Matzke, D., Gronau, Q. F., Guan, M.,
Vanderkerckhove, J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2015). Meta-analyses
are no substitute for registered replications: A skeptical perspective on
religious priming. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6, Article 1365. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01365
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating
and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer
for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in
Psychology, 4, Article 863. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
Simmons, J. P., & Simonsohn, U. (2017). Power
posing: P-curving the evidence. Psychological
Science, 28, 687-693. doi:10.1177/0956797616658563
Carney’s response to power pose controversy: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/dana_carney/pdf_My%20position%20on%20power%20poses.pdf
Supplemental:
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012).
Effect size
estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
141, 2-18. doi:10.1037/a0024338
Methods assignment #4 due: Quantitative article.
March 28—Presentations
7 presentations
Gosling, S. D., & Mason, W. (2015). Internet
research in psychology. Annual Review
of Psychology, 66, 877-902. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015321
Necka, E. A., Cacioppo, S., Norman, G. J., &
Cacioppo, J. T. (2016). Measuring
the prevalence of problematic respondent behaviors among mTurk, campus, and
community participants. PLoS ONE, 11,
e0157732. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157732
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside
the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
23, 184-188. doi:10.1177/0963721414531598
*Chandler, J. J., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Lie
for a dime: When most prescreening responses are honest but most study
participants are imposters. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 8¸ 500-508.
doi:10.1177/1948550617698203.
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A.,
& Christakis, N. (2008). Tastes,
ties, and time: A new social network dataset using Facebook.com. Social Networks, 30, 330-342.
doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2008.07.002
*article
will be emailed to you. Only abstract is available online.
Computer simulation presentation—How can computer simulations add to our knowledge of
psychology and human behavior? When are they best used? What advantages and disadvantages
do they offer?
Smart phone presentation—What types of applications can smartphones be used for
(e.g., GPS, activity, sounds, photographs)? What are the advantages and
challenges of these apps and how can the challenges be addressed (think ethics
as well)?
Virtual reality presentation—How has virtual reality been used in psychology? What
types of virtual reality have been used? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of these approaches? (Jim Blascovich is a good researcher to
start with)
Big data mining—How can researchers use Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other sources to
learn about human behavior and personality? Are there ethical considerations?
Methods assignment #5 due: Meta-analysis
April
11—Writing it up and scientific communication
T&D Chapter 15
Strunk, W., Jr. (1999). The elements of style. New York:
Bartleby.com
Bem, D. J. (2002). Writing the empirical journal article.
In J. M.
Darley, M. P. Zanna, & H. L. Roediger III (Eds.), The compleat
academic: A career guide. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Sternberg, R. J. (1993). How to win acceptances
by psychology journals: 21 tips for better writing. APA Observer.
Proposal due April 9 (exchange with assigned
peer). Peer comments due April 12 (11:59pm). You should have a completed paper for your
partner to comment on. You’ll turn in both your paper and your partner’s
comments.
Scientific communication
Gelman, A. (2016, September 21). What
has happened down here is the winds have changed. Statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science.
Retrieved from:
http://andrewgelman.com/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-here-is-the-winds-have-changed/
Fiske, S. T. (2016, November). A
call to change science’s culture of shaming. APS Observer. Retrieved from: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/a-call-to-change-sciences-culture-of-shaming
(this is an updated version of what Gelman excerpts—taking out terms like
“methodological terrorists.”)
Dominus, S. (2017, October 18). When
the revolution came for Amy Cuddy. The
New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/magazine/when-the-revolution-came-for-amy-cuddy.html
Yong, E. (2012, March 10). A
failed replication draws a scathing personal attack from a psychology professor.
Discover Magazine. Retrieved from:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/10/failed-replication-bargh-psychology-study-doyen/#.WjQovbBG271
There is no in-person class this week. You will
exchange papers with your peer and meet with them to discuss your comments.
You’ll also respond to an online discussion on scientific communications (which
will include your thought paper for the week).
April
18—Priming, implicit measures, and physiological measures.
Schimmack, U., Heene, M., & Kesavan, K. (2017,
February 2). Reconstruction
of a train wreck: How priming research went off the rails. Replicability-Index. Retrieved from:
https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails
Yong, E. (2012, October 3). Nobel
laureate challenges pscyhologists to clean up their act. Nature. Retrieved from:
https://www.nature.com/news/nobel-laureate-challenges-psychologists-to-clean-up-their-act-1.11535
(Also click on the link to Kahneman’s open e-mail within the article and read
it)
Klatzky, R. L., & Creswell, J. D. (2014). An intersensory
interaction account of priming effects—and their absence. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 9,
49-58. doi:10.1177/1745691613513468
Tiege-Mocigemba, S., Klauer, K. C., & Sherman, J.
W. (2010). A
practical guide to implicit association tests and related tasks. In B.
Gawronski & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook
of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp.
117-139). New York: Guilford Press. doi: 10.13140/2.1.4889.1845
Bartlett, T. (2017, January 5). Can we really measure
implicit bias? Maybe not. The Chronicle
of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807/
*Blascovich, J. (2014). Using physiological indexes of
psychological processes in social psychological research. In H. T. Reis &
C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research
methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp.
117-137). New York: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511996481.010
Baldwin, S. A., (2017). Improving
the rigor of psychophysiology research. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 111, 5-16. doi:10.1016/j.ipsycho.2016.04.006
*I’ll email this one to you.
fMRI
presentation—What is fMRI? What does it
tell us? How can it be used in psychology? Are there things researchers using
this method need to be aware of?
Eye tracking
presentation—What is eye tracking?
How can it be used in psychology?
Hormone sampling presentation—What hormones have typically been tracked in
psychology? How are these collected? What do they tell us? What are best
practices in collecting them (e.g., times of day, people for whom the results
aren’t accurate)?
Proposal
due April 17, 5pm!
April 25--Qualitative research
T&D Chapter 6, 8, and 13
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative
quality: Eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837-851.
doi:10.1177/1077800410383121
Campbell, R. (2017). Qualitative fieldwork
within the criminal justice system: Emotions, advocacy, and the pursuit of
social justice for untested sexual assault kits (SAKs). Qualitative Psychology, 4, 315-325.
doi:10.1037/qup0000063
Semi-structured interviews presentation—What are the advantages/disadvantages of this method?
What are some best practices? How can the data be analyzed?
Monday, April 30 (1:00-2:50)—Final exam
Methods assignment #6 due: Qualitative
article.