Homework for Miss Thandi!
My last homework for the Wonderful Thandi!
Thanks!
Comment 1
http://psud56.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/animal-testing-should-we-or-shouldnt-we/#comment-35
Comment 2
http://prpdh.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/methodology-of-my-last-sona-participation/#comment-61
Comment 3
http://dnf24.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/outliers/#comment-63
Comment 4
http://bloggenrolla.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/the-file-drawer-effect/#comment-79
The Statistics of Facebook!
Okay, so I now reach a topic which I never believed I would write about in a University administered blog. Facebook. This blog is based on a POPPS presentation I gave in the beginning of my second year course. Now almost everyone who reads this blog will have a Facebook account. It is the most popular social networking site in the world and *hold on to your boots* has outstripped (no pun intended) internet pornography in most time viewed!! Anyway, I felt it would be interesting to look into some of the statistics of Facebook as it seems to affect an awful lot of people lives.
As of 2012, an estimated 845 million people hold a Facebook account. That’s a lot of people. 12% of the population of the Earth to put it in other words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook) . This is a staggeringly high number and is continuously growing. At the same time only around 20% of the Earth’s population have internet access. Okay so over half of all the people in the world who have access to the internet have a Facebook account. Doesn’t this seem a tad crazy. And I am talking about internet access. Not just having an internet modem in your house. This statistic also includes those people who may have an internet cafe in their local area regardless of whether or not they can afford to use it. So this statistic about how many people in the world have internet access may be a little warped.
The other evening, I sat and watched Sport Relief, which showed heart wrenching clips of children and adults in UK, Africa & Asia struggling to live due to disease, illness, mental health etc…While watching the program it dawned on me just how lucky we are as a country and that is it fair about all the luxuries we take for granted. I found an interesting article on the BBC website that shows that people worldwide believe the internet should be a basic human right which is an interesting read. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8548190.stm). It makes me a little angry that the number of people in Facebook is around the same as half of the worlds population living in absolute poverty! These statistics seem all wrong and makes me wonder how correct this system is. Imagine the changes that could be bought about with the profits that websites like Facebook make ($100 billion). I think a lot less people should have Facebook, and a lot more should have food and clean water. I understand that this is not closely related to research methods and I don’t want to sound like a Free the World activist but I think the statistics are staggering and this topic really got me riled up. Anyway this concludes the end of my Sunday morning rant. And what a lot of fun it has been too!
Homework for Thandi!
Comment 1
http://danshephard.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/sona-for-the-students-or-for-the-staff/#comment-27
Comment 2
http://notwilliam.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/obsrvational-psychology/#comment-95
Comment 3
http://psucab.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/somethings-are-better-left-untouched/#comment-51
Comment 4
Correlation
And yet again I have to find from somewhere an ‘interesting’ blog topic to write about so this weeks chosen gauntlet is correlation. Enjoy!
Correlation best describes the form of data that is produced from observational research. Observational research is where no variables are altered (except in controlled observations, but these are pretty much field experiments, but I digress) and individuals are just watched doing as they are doing to get real data, not something that has been ‘grown’ in a lab. After observational data you are left with correlational data that simply tells you that A could predict B and vice versa. There is no causality in correlational data as no manipulation of variables has taken place so you cannot tell whether it was variable A that predicts B or whether variable C is actually a better predictor. This leads us to our first disadvantage of correlation.
Without causality, correlation can only really tell us that there may be a relationship. Also the relationship shown on a scatter graph may mean nothing as the data could be completely down to chance and we would not know. An example of this (although silly) is as follows: A correlational data set shows that large quantitites of chocolate eaten (A) directly influences obesity (B). However the data set does not show that the people who ate large quantities of chocolate studied in this procedure were also incredibly heavy drinkers or ate other high fat foods. However the correlation data set shows a near perfect relationship between chocolate and obesity without looking at all the other factors. But I am being very nitpicky! There are some positives to correlational data.
The major positive is that correlational data steers future research. Observational and correlational research is a cheaper way to explore whether or not an area of research is worth studying. In the same breath I would like to add that even though correlational data cannot show causality it CAN show when there is no causality. If a correlational data set comes back show little to no relationship, then you know as a researcher that there is not much point in continuing with this research. This can save time and money for researchers.
To conclude although correlation cannot show causality or true relationships between variables, it can give us a strong indicator as to whether there will be a relationship. Correlation is a cheap alternative to running a fully blown experiment only then to find out that there was no relationship after all. Same time next week (and another week)!
These websites are some great (but simple) resources for correlation:
http://www.intropsych.com/ch01_psychology_and_science/correlation_and_prediction.html
http://www.experiment-resources.com/correlation-and-causation.html
Homework for Thandi!
Comment 1
http://psucd6psychology.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/the-effects-of-caffeine-on-cognition/#comment-30
Comment 2
http://bloggenrolla.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/observational-studies/#comment-37
Comment 3
http://spearmint123.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/the-stanford-prison-experiment/#comment-24
Comment 4
http://psucfb.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/theplaceboeffect/#comment-36
Is psychological research biased?
Bias is a word banded about the world a little to much in my opinion. It seems most people cannot spell it and most of the rest don’t really understand the true meaning of it. Sitting here at my desk I cannot think of anything that does not hold some sort of bias however small it may be. But is this really a problem. I will look to discuss this concerning the field of psychological research. While this is still a ridiculously broad topic, I am going to narrow it down to the influences of external bodies on psychological research.
A lot of research is government funded. The government pumps a huge amount of money (although not as much as they used to) into the education system, some of which get spent on funding research projects (the rest seems to get spent on providing pizza for hungry students in the Wheldon building and kitting Jesse Martin out with cockroach costume although I’m not complaining about this!). Is this to say that the research projects are inherently biased towards finding results that government officials want to see and hiding away other conflicting data. I would suggest not. The aim of any (decent) government and in turn science is to encourage the development of knowledge and our understanding of the world. The government puts money in and they get research out of it that will benefit the taxpayers.
However, I don’t believe that the same can be applied to private investments. When a large company, business or individual invests money into projects, it will be clear that they expect some sort of reward or gain from it. Take a pharmaceutics company for example. They may fund research into the effectiveness of their drug. If the research comes back showing that having a ‘jolly good lie down’ is equally effective they will not be pleased and may therefore doctor or tamper with the results to sell their product. In this instance I do not doubt that there is large biases in research.
The bias of research
We then move onto the role of ethics in research. Ethics are sets of rules and guidelines that suggest to researchers how they should carry out their work. These ethical guidelines are proposed and enforced by bodies such as the APA and BPS. While these organisations may seem neutral, they are likely to only allow research to happen if it fits in with their codes and rules. This glares out to me as a mistake. Incredible research such as Milgram’s (1963) would not be allowed to occur in the modern day which seems ridiculous as we are capping the extent to what research can tell us. I believe that this form of bias is damaging to our academic understanding.
To conclude my long (and probably irrelevant) rant I believe that bias is a fact of life and we can never have anything free from bias. However I do not claim that bias cannot be damaging. It especially scares me that great findings of research may never happen due to restrictions placed upon the way that we can carry out research. Sort of seems like we are reaching a peak of human endeavour. Depressed yet?
Homework for my TA!
N.B. For the above link – I had already commented on that blog but have gone back and added a new point which I hope still counts. It is the later dated comment that I would like to be marked. Thanks.
http://columsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/can-we-justify-using-animals-in-experiments/#comment-38
Milgram: Poor Show or a Step in the Right Direction?
In 1961, Stanley Milgram began a series of experiments that would be furiously debated for the next 50 years (today). His study into obedience taught the world that any ordinary man or woman was capable of killing (or administering serious harm to) another human at the orders of a powerful figure. The procedure of the study was simple. A teacher (participant) and a learner (confederate) were placed in different rooms. The teacher then began a series of simple word tests to which the confederate would respond (starting with correct answers then gradually answering incorrectly). For every incorrect answer the teacher would have to administer an increasingly powerful electric shock to the learner. 65% of participant went all the way and administered a lethal dose of 450V and many more continued to about 300V even if they could here the learner ‘beating on the walls and crying out’. This finding shocked the world as it proved that anyone was capable of horrors such as those seen in Nazi Germany. However an even bigger debate began about the ethics of Milgrams work. Did the outcome of his work justify the means in which he did it? I believe that his methods were completely justified by the results he found.
The Set-up of Milgrams' Study
Many would argue that Milgrams’ work was completely unethical. There was ‘no doubt’ that the participants came under some sort of psychological or physiological stress (reported crying, sweating and worry from participants) and that they came away from that experiment knowing that they were capable of killing. However, a follow up study showed that over 80% of the participants were glad that they had taken part and knew the findings which suggests that little psychological harm was done.
Others would argue that Milgram deceived his participants. Yes this is true. But most important research studies from the past did deceive their participants (not that this makes it right). The truth is that deception allows for real data to be collected and prevents factors like demand characteristics from playing a part. If Milgrams participants had been fully informed the data would have been pointless as the participants would have known that the learner was a confederate who was not receiving any shocks. Secondly Milgram carried out the most rigorous debriefing of his day. He completely informed his participants as to the nature of his study after they had completed it and offered them any sort of aid or counselling if they felt harmed by the procedure in any way. Surely this partly makes up for deceiving his participants.
In conclusion, Milgrams work although seemingly unethical, did take many measures to protect its participants while still gaining incredibly strong data. Second to that, the data he did collect was so incredibly important as it showed the world that anyone was capable of terrible things. It transformed the post war view that ‘all Germans were cruel people’ to the view that anyone could be corrupted by someone who holds power over them. For these reasons I believe that Milgrams work was completely justified and that the reason people try to attack his work is that they don’t appreciate what it says about the human race!
psud6d 