Foundations of
Research
Introduction to research in psychology.
‹#›
12 / 18 / 14
 No screens in class (including phones): turn it off and put
it away!
i>Clicker:
 Register your i>clicker on both
Blackboard and the i>clicker web site!
 Students who fail to correctly register will
not get lecture credit.
 See if you are correctly registered by
whether you are getting lecture credit on
Blackboard.
 Make sure your frequency is set to ‘AA’.
 When you click, make sure the green light
shows you were received.
Foundations of
Research
Introductory lectures
‹#›

 What is science?
 Beliefs v. facts
 Science, anti-science,
pseudoscience.
 Where does knowledge of
the world come from?
© Dr. David J. McKirnan, 2015
The University of Illinois Chicago
McKirnanUIC@gmail.com
Do not use or reproduce without
permission
Cranach, Tree of Knowledge [of Good and Evil] (1472)
Foundations of
Research
Core components of science
What is science?
Values:
Science combines Critical thought
with Empiricism
 We are interested in the Natural
World
 The core purpose of scientific study
is Theory: how do natural
processes work?
 Theory development rests on
Evidence: How do you know?
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Core components of science
What is science?
Values:
Critical thought + Empiricism
 Understand the Natural World
 Theory: How or Why?
 Evidence: How do you know?
Content




Empirical findings: Facts
Ways of classifying nature
Well supported theories
Science is public
Methods
 Objective approaches
 Basic experimental design
 Specific research procedures
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Core components of science
What is science?
Values:
Critical thought + Empiricism
 Understand the Natural World
 Theory: How or Why?
 Evidence: How do you know?
Content




Empirical findings: Facts
Ways of classifying nature
Well supported theories
Science is public
Methods
 Objective approaches
 Basic experimental design
 Specific research procedures
Foundations of
Research
Critical thinking
Values:
‹#›
Critical thought + Empiricism



Understand the Natural World
Theory: How or Why?
Evidence: How do you know?
 How do you know that?
 What empirical evidence is there?
• How do you know if the evidence is valid and
reliable?
 Does it make sense?
• Is it logically coherent?
• Does it jibe with what we already know about the
world?
 What other explanation or interpretation may
make more sense?
Foundations of
Research


Values:
‹#›
Critical thought + Empiricism
Active


What is critical thinking?
Seek (new & diverse) information rather than passively
accepting an existing or traditional conclusion.
Skeptical;
(Not simply doubting everything)

Suspend belief until there is evidence

Make judgments about whether something…

Is plausible & rational

Is supported by evidence

Be clear on the limitations of your and others’ knowledge

Be prepared to change in the face of new evidence or theory
Creative

Develop and consider alternative explanations or
interpretations

Imagine different ways to evaluate or test a claim
Foundations of
Research
Critical thinking & Science
Values:
‹#›
Critical thought + Empiricism

How does critical thought map on to science?

Here is the model of the scientific process we will use
(and that you will use for your paper!):
Phenomenon
Theory
Hypothesis
Methods / Data
Foundations of
Research

Critical thinking in science
Values:
Critical thought + Empiricism
One model of the scientific process:
Phenomenon
‹#›
• What do we not understand
about some important part of the
world?
• Gaps in knowledge?
• New idea or concept?
Foundations of
Research

Critical thinking in science
Values:
‹#›
Critical thought + Empiricism
One model of the scientific process:
Phenomenon
Theory
Explain the phenomenon?
• Coherent & logical principles?
• Basic physical, social or
psychological processes?
Foundations of
Research

Critical thinking in science
Values:
‹#›
Critical thought + Empiricism
One model of the scientific process:
Phenomenon
Theory
Hypothesis
Concrete & specific prediction
flows from – and tests – theory?
• If I manipulate…
• If I am observing…
Foundations of
Research

Critical thinking in science
Values:
‹#›
Critical thought + Empiricism
One model of the scientific process:
Phenomenon
Theory
Hypothesis
Methods / Data
What empirical evidence will test
the hypothesis?
• What must I measure or observe?
• Ensure evidence is unbiased &
objective?
o Replicable?
o Converging studies?
Foundations of
Research
Critical thinking in science
Values:
‹#›
Critical thought + Empiricism
As critical thought, scientific process is:
Active;
• Actively seek new or better
Phenomenon
Theory
Hypothesis
Methods / Data
explanations…
Skeptical;
• Theories must be coherent and logical
• Hypotheses must be specific enough
to be tested.
• Without valid empirical evidence all
beliefs are tentative.
• New evidence can always overturn our
theories or beliefs.
Creative;
• Every stage benefits from innovation.
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Core components of science
What is science?
Values:
Critical thought + Empiricism
 Understand the Natural World
 Theory: How or Why?
 Evidence: How do you know?
Content




Empirical findings: Facts
Ways of classifying nature
Well supported theories
Science is public
Methods
 Objective approaches
 Basic experimental design
 Specific research procedures
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Core components of science
What is science?
Values:
Critical thought + Empiricism
 Understand the Natural World
 Theory: How or Why?
 Evidence: How do you know?
Content




Empirical findings: Facts
Ways of classifying nature
Well supported theories
Science is public
Methods
 Objective approaches
 Basic experimental design
 Specific research procedures
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Core components of science
How do we address basic
questions about how the
natural world works?
How do we state an
issue as a research
question?
Phenomenon
Theory
Hypothesis
Methods
Foundations of
Research
Core components of science
‹#›
How can we address basic questions about
the world?
How do we ensure our
research is ethical?
We balance the cost or
risks of research
against its scientific
benefits.
We have developed
common guidelines
or ethical standards
across areas of
research.
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Core components of science
How can we address basic questions about
the world?
How do we ensure our research is ethical?
How do we gather data that
is reliable and valid?
Two major streams:
A. Observation
/measurement
 Systematically assess
phenomena without
altering them
B. Experiments
 Control Independent
Variable, assess affect
on Dependent
Variable.
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Core components of science
How do we address basic questions about
the world?
How do we ensure our research is ethical?
How do we gather data that is reliable and
valid?
Who or what do we study,
and why?
We must ensure that
our sample well
represents the
population we hope
to address.
 Population: historical
events, people, brain
cells…
 Sample: archival
documents, research
subjects, cell lines…
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Core components of science
How do we answer basic questions about
the world?
How do we ensure our research is ethical?
How do we gather data that is reliable and
valid?
Who or what do we study, and why?
How are statistics important
to science?
 Quantitative studies:
numerical data for
statistical analysis.
 Qualitative research:
text or other media.
o
Can be quantified.
 Statistical Reasoning
rests on the normal
distribution.
Foundations of
Research
Core values of Science
‹#›
 Critical thought is a central value in knowledge
• Active understanding and questioning
• Skepticism; seeking logical coherence and empirical evidence
SUMMARY
• Creative seeking for alternative explanations or evidence.
 Science maps directly onto critical thought
• We actively seek better understanding of
natural phenomena.
• Theory must be coherent and generate logical
hypotheses.
• Hypotheses must be empirically tested; belief
requires evidence
• Creativity is an integral part of each element of
the scientific method.
Foundations of
Research
Core values of Science
 Key constituents of scientific understanding
• Fact:
 Direct, public observation or description
SUMMARY
• Hypothesis:
 Thought out / empirically grounded prediction that tests a
theory
• Theory:
 Logical statement of how or why nature works
 Developed and tested over time
• Law;
 Highly regular natural process that explains important
scientific findings
 Amenable to change in the face of new data or theory
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Click!
A hypothesis is…
A = An assumption we make
about the world
B = A way of explaining how
something works.
C = Important primarily to
controlled experiments
D = A specific prediction about the
results of a study.
E = A completely novel idea about
an important phenomenon.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Click!
A theory is…
A = Mostly speculation.
B = Rarely changeable.
C = A coherent explanation of
natural processes.
D = Less important than data or
findings
E = Cannot be (very) creative – it
must follow from other studies.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Click!
The Copernican Revolution was
mostly noted for:
A = Making knowledge public
rather than authority based.
B = Mapping the stars.
C = The law of gravitational force.
D = The first systematic
development of theory.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Click!
A hypothesis…
A = Can be useful but is not
crucial to a scientific study
B = Usually precedes the
development of a theory
C = Is more like a guess or a
hunch
D = Can be developed after we
collect data and look at our
findings
E = Is the link between the theory
and data.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Click!
A scientific law…
A = Describes but does not
actually explain findings.
B = Rarely has exceptions.
C = Cannot be modified or
changed.
D = Typically is very specific, with
narrow application.
E = Answers a core question
about nature; little further
research is usually needed.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Click!
Critical thinking does not involve...
A = Being active in finding better
explanations
B = Careful attention to empirical
evidence
C = Innovation and creativity
D = Finding a single source of
reliable information.
E = Skepticism; questioning how
we know things.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Introduction to science, 1
 What is science?

 Beliefs v. facts
 Science, anti-science, magical
thought.
 Where does our knowledge of
the world come from?
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
How do we know things?

We should [not] open diplomatic relations with Cuba.

12 people died in the Charlie Hebdo attack in France.

Each of us has an intrinsic purpose that we must
discover.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Belief
or
Opinion
How
do
we
from
distinguish…
Empirical
Statement or
Fact
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
How do we know things?
‹#›

Opening diplomatic relations with Cuba is a great idea.

Over 150,000 people have died in the Syrian conflict.

Each of us has an intrinsic purpose that we must
discover.

The earth is about 3.5 billion years old.
What research could you do on this statement?
Foundations of
Research
Let’s answer some belief & fact
All ideas have
some merit
andyour iClickers
questions…
using
should be considered equally.
A = True
B = I’m not sure
C = False
 Most any idea is worthy of study.
 Scientific acceptance of ideas is not egalitarian;
 Ideas: coherent + empirical support.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Knowledge attitudes, 2
If a lot of people believe something there is
probably something to that.
A = True
B = I’m not sure
C = False
 Science is not democratic;
 data “win”, not the majority of believers
 Many foolish or dangerous ideas are accepted until
countered by empirical evidence.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Knowledge attitudes, 3
I can just sense when something is
true or false.
A = True
B = I’m not sure
C = False
 Intuition:
 important source of hypotheses or theories
 Describes emotions, not necessarily real world.
 Emotionality & subjectivity not scientific until
empirically tested.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Knowledge attitudes, 4
Everyone is biased, even scientists,
so why shouldn’t I just believe
what makes sense to me?
A = True
B = I’m not sure
C = False

Every person has biases

Science is not person based:

…about methods, not people,

…specifically works to lessen personal bias.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research

Science: core values
Some ideas are “better” than others.
 Is it logically coherent?
 Is it supported by evidence?
 Does it make sense with what
is already known?
‹#›
Foundations of
Research


‹#›
Core values
Some ideas are “better” than others.
Science is based on methods and
evidence, not people.
 Objective methods are
specifically designed to
overcome our natural biases.
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Core values

Some ideas are “better” than others.

Science is based on methods and evidence, not people.

Evidence from the natural world trumps
personal biases or beliefs.
 Evidence from the “real world”
has the final say.
 Not OK to “Cherry pick”
confirmatory or self-serving
evidence.
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Core values

Some ideas are “better” than others.

Science is based on methods and evidence, not people.

Evidence from the natural world trumps personal biases
or beliefs.

Logic or rational thought are (generally)
more important than intuition or
emotions.
 Is it logically coherent?
 Is it supported by evidence?
 Does it make sense with what
is already known?
Foundations of
Research
The values of science & empiricism
Critical thought
 How does it work? Theories:
SUMMARY
 Coherent: internally consistent & clearly explains the
phenomenon
 Articulate with what is known
 How do you know?
 What is the evidence for or against a hypothesis or theory?
 Focus on the natural world.
 Science: evidence & objective methods, not individual
people or ideologies.
 Science is an open system:
 Our theories & knowledge base must accommodate new /
different findings
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Introduction to science, 2
 What is science?
 Beliefs v. facts

 Science, anti-science,
magical thought.
 Where does our knowledge of
the world come from?
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Are we rational?
Are people “rational”?
Are our beliefs generally scientific?

Irrational beliefs have increased in the U.S.
in the 21st Century
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Beliefs…
About 50% of Americans
believe in ESP
Despite consistent failures to
demonstrate it scientifically.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Beliefs, 2…
‹#›
37% of Americans believe in
haunted houses
(54% believe or not sure)
% of people
believe / not sure
about haunted
houses
% of people who
believe global
warming is
influenced by
human activity.
Foundations of
Research
Irrational beliefs
‹#›
Americans in general harbor
many irrational beliefs
 70%: influence the world via
positive thought.
 M = 60%: positive thought
changes world, Atlantis, Dreams
tell the future, Hauntings.
 52%: vaccines are safe.
 ≈ 30% accept human-based
climate change / evolution.
 % who accept Big Bang theory =
% believe in Bigfoot.
A Washington
Post overview is
here.
The original study
is here.
Foundations of
Research


Why do we reject scientific explanations?
When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Scientific explanations abstract & difficult; intuition easier /
“feels better”

Conformity pressure of popular opinion
Misunderstanding of chance & coincidence;

Spurious correlations

We see correlations even in nonsense data

Intuitive rather than logical interpretation
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Example of (silly) spurious correlation.
EXAMPLE
Basic (perceptual) fallacy; if B follows A, A must cause B.
r = .87
http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=2948, 4/9/15
EXAMPLE
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Spurious correlations
r = .666
http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=359, 4/9/15
R = .95
Foundations of
Research

Spurious correlations

…often a 3rd variable actually causes both terms in the correlation.
Correlation
EXAMPLE
‹#›
3rd variables in spurious correlations
Cause
Shoe size and reading
performance for elementary
school children
Age
Age: Older children have larger
shoe sizes and read
better.
Number of police officers and
number of crimes
Population density:
density In highly
dense areas, there are more
police officers and more crimes.
(Glass & Hopkins, 1996)
Number of storks sighted and the
population of Oldenburg,
Germany, over a six-year period
(Box, Hunter, & Hunter, 1978)
Time
Time: Both variables were
increasing over time.
Foundations of
Research
Interpreting correlations
The chart makes this causal explanation
visually compelling…
 What else could be going on?

Most fat & cancer  wealthier,
urbanized, industrialized.

Less exercise / more prepared
(“factory”) food consumption.

Wealth and urbanization increase
exposure to carcinogens other than
fat?

“Obvious” causal link is
questionable / incomplete if it relies
on correlational data only.
Age-adjusted death rate per 100,000 people
Fat appears to cause cancer.
‹#›
FIGURE 3 | Association between fat intake
and breast cancer.
The 3rd variable problem.
Total dietary fat intake (g day-1)
From: Diet and cancer — the European Prospective Investigation into
Cancer and Nutrition. S. Bingham & E. Riboli, Nature Reviews Cancer 4,
206-215 (March 2004). doi:10.1038/nrc1298,
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v4/n3/fig_tab/nrc1298_F3.html
Why do we reject scientific explanations?
Foundations of
Research

‹#›
Why do people reject scientific explanations?

When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Misunderstanding of chance and coincidence;

Confirmatory bias:


We notice, recall, over-weight info. that confirms our beliefs
or ideologies.
Emotionally we seek consistency…

A thought or belief dissonant with evidence is uncomfortable;

We may seek to reduce dissonance by seeking confirmatory
information…
Foundations of
Research

Why do we reject scientific explanations?
Why do people reject scientific explanations?

When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Misunderstanding of chance and coincidence;

Confirmatory bias

Emotional needs & “the will to believe”;


Superstitions provide a sense of control over the world.
We want to believe in ‘myths’ that make the world seem
manageable (“The Secret”)
‹#›
Foundations of
Research


Intuition & Magical Thought
‹#›
Brain evolved toward snap judgments about causation:

Leap to conclusions via fast emotional processing.

Emotional needs distort perceptions before logic kicks in…
Our need to feel in control can lead to imagine cause
and effect when there really is none (…The Secret, “magic”
foods or diets, rituals).
 We experience
emotions faster
than we can think
Foundations of
Research


Intuition & Magical Thought
‹#›
Brain evolved toward snap judgments about causation:

Leap to conclusions via fast emotional processing.

Emotional needs distort perceptions before logic kicks in…
Our need to feel in control can lead to imagine cause
and effect when there really is none (…The Secret, “magic”
foods or diets, rituals).
 A rational, empirical approach
 Takes more cognitive effort
 Can require us to suppress our
intuitions or emotions
Foundations of
Research

Why do we reject scientific explanations?
‹#›
Why do people reject scientific explanations?

When they conflict with intuition or popular opinion.

Misunderstanding of chance and coincidence;

Confirmatory bias.

Emotional needs & “the will to believe”;

Cultural patterns

(Intentional) Confusion of opinion with fact (Political pundits..).

Uncritical media coverage of non-factual explanations.
Foundations of
Research

Why do we reject scientific explanations?
‹#›
Cultural patterns

(Intentional) Confusion of opinion with fact (Fox news..).

Uncritical media coverage

Magical thought woven into consumer products…
The “secret” / mystical self-help.
Useless
“Miracle”
products
.
Dietary supplements.
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Sources of irrational beliefs
Key terms:
 Illusionary correlation
 Two events that coincide are not
necessarily meaningfully “correlated”.
 Illusory causation
 Correlation ≠ causality
 Social consensus
 Beliefs are not necessarily ‘true’
because many people hold them.
 Confirmatory bias
 We seek – or are more sensitive to –
information that confirms our bias’
 Affect-driven beliefs
 Emotionality or wishful thinking drive
may irrational beliefs.
r = .666
Foundations of
Research
Introduction to science, 3
‹#›
 What is science?
 Beliefs v. facts
 Science, anti-science, magical
thought.

 Where does our
knowledge of the
world come from?
Woman with book, Pablo Picasso.
Foundations of
Research
How do we know things?
Section Overview
How do we know things?
Authority / Tradition
Intuitions
Empiricism; direct experience
Rationalism / theory
‹#›
Foundations of
Research

Sources of knowledge
Authority:
‹#›
“I believe what they tell me to”
Credible / powerful people
Institutions & traditions
Culturally important texts: Bible, Quran…
Foundations of
Research
Sources of knowledge, intuition

Authority:
“I believe what they tell me to”

Intuition:
“I believe my Gut feelings”
Emotionality or a “hunch”
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Sources of knowledge, Empiricism

Authority:
“I believe what they tell me to”

Intuition:
“I believe my Gut feelings”

Empiricism:
“I believe what I can see”
Simple sensation or perception
Direct observation; data
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Sources of knowledge, Rationalism

Authority:
“I believe what they tell me to”

Intuition:
“I believe my Gut feelings”

Empiricism:

Rationalism:
“I believe what I can see”
“I believe what makes sense.”
Logical coherence
Articulation with other ideas
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Sources of knowledge, Science

Authority:
Credible / powerful people
Important social institutions

Intuition:
Emotionality or a “hunch”

Empiricism:
Simple sensation or perception
Direct
data
Mostobservation;
central to
Science

Rationalism:
Logical coherence
Articulation with other ideas
‹#›
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Authority
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Authority-based belief
Key distinction:
Authority
 Beliefs derived from
experience or
accumulated knowledge
 “Expertise”
 Designated by, e.g.,
Educational or other
credentials
Authoritarianism
 Beliefs derived institutional
position
 Interpreter of ‘sacred texts’
 Bible, Quran, prophet
 Ideological or political
leader
 Political
 Talk show host…
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
Authority-based belief
Key distinction:
Authority
Authoritarianism
 Beliefs derived from
experience or
accumulated knowledge
 Beliefs derived institutional
position, ‘sacred text’,
ideological leader
• Source of authority is
typically evidence-based.
• Source of authority is
typically person-based.
 …derived from a history
of studies in a field.
• Amenable to new or
conflicting evidence.
 …sacred text,
ideologue…
• Rarely amenable to new
or conflicting evidence.
Strong leaders can change authoritarian systems; c.f. Pope Francis.
Foundations of
Research
Authority-based belief…
What are some advantages of authority –
based belief?



Provides a stable core of principles; knowledge & beliefs…
People with extensive experience & knowledge have important
insights.
Can move a field beyond the data; visionaries, revolutionaries…
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Authority-based belief…
Disadvantages?

Can be insensitive to proof or evidence

Can be misused for financial / political ends…

Highly susceptible to political bias
 Can require evidence / science be
corrupted, distorted or ignored.
 Ignore or circumvent normal scientific
procedures (e.g., Intelligent Design
content in biology instruction).
‹#›
EXAMPLE
Foundations of
Research
Authority-based belief
Psychoanalysis is based on the writings of
key authorities rather than actual
psychological evidence, but did
contribute to psychology.
Christian “conversion
therapies” continue to
try and turn gay men
straight, despite
evidence that they are
destructive.
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
2: Intuition, emotion, superstition
Intuition
‹#›
Foundations of
Research


Intuition, emotion, superstition…
Advantages?

Can provide emotional or personal insight

Origin of novel hypotheses or theories

Can move a field beyond the data
Disadvantages?


Magical thinking: often explicitly non-empirical
Emotion (e.g., fear) can outweigh rationality or
evidence
‹#›
EXAMPLE
Foundations of
Research
Intuition
Intuition can be invaluable to science. Werner
Heisenberg, a key developer of quantum
theory, wrote that his musical training
helped him appreciate scientific theory.
“New age” therapies
and products
flourish because
they satisfy our
emotional wishes,
not necessarily by
doing anything…
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
3. Empiricism: Directly observing the natural world
Empiricism
‹#›
Foundations of
Research

Empiricism or simple exposure
‹#›
Advantages?

Grounds knowledge in “real world”.

Confirm intuition by observation

Makes knowledge public
(e.g., Copernican revolution)

Disadvantages / limitations?
1. Simple illusions / misperceptions / measurement error
2. Confirmatory bias
3. Oversensitive to emotional / perceptual salience
4. Spurious correlations
5. Anti-science use of naïve empiricism
Foundations of
Research

Limitations to empiricism
Why is it difficult for us to use empirical
evidence in our decision making?
1. Illusions
2. Confirmatory
Our perceptions
of the bias
world can be
simply mistaken
3. Emotional salience
4. Spurious correlations
5. Naïve empiricism
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Limits of empiricism:
1. Simple illusions
Akiyoshi KITAOKA, Psychology, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/index-e.html
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
‹#›
How many Fs do you see in this passage?
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.
A=2
B=3
C=4
D=5
E=6
Foundations of
Research

Limitations to empiricism: Confirmatory Bias
Why is it difficult for us to use empirical
evidence in our decision making?
1. Illusions
2. Confirmatory bias
Our perceptions
aresalience
often biased by
3. Emotional
what we expect to see…
4. Spurious correlations
5. Naïve empiricism
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Limits of empiricism:
‹#›
2. Confirmatory bias
Cops and doughnuts
Cop?
Doughnut?
Yes
Yes
No
No




 = memorability
subjective cooccurrence matrix.
Foundations of
Research

Limitations to empiricism; Emotional Salience
Why is it difficult for us to use empirical
evidence in our decision making?
1. Illusions
2. Confirmatory bias
3. Emotional salience
4. Spurious
correlations
Our memories
of what
we see can
be biased by emotions or simple
5. Naïve
empiricism
salience
(we remember
dramatic events
better…)
‹#›
Foundations of
Research

Limits of empiricism:
3. Emotional Salience
‹#›
We pay attention to & remember
stimuli that are:
Perceptually salient
Address our emotional needs
 Salience effects: Which kills more women, breast cancer or
cardiovascular disease?
 Fear arousal: Is the deficit a genuinely serious economic issue?
 Conspiracy theories: Could Kennedy have been killed by a single
person? (law of effect)
 Fear based attitude change: Democracy is threatened by phony
voters  we need to make voting much more difficult…
Foundations of
Research

Limitations to empiricism; Spurious correlations
Why is it difficult for us to use empirical
evidence in our decision making?
1. Illusions
We can easily think one event
2. Confirmatory
bias they
caused
the other just because
co-occur [see: Magical Thought]
3. Emotional salience
4. Spurious correlations
5. Naïve empiricism
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
4. Spurious (naïve empirical) correlations:
‹#›
The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer
heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The French eat a lot of fat and also suffer fewer
heart attacks than the British or Americans.
The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer
fewer heart attacks than the British or
Americans.
The Italians drink lots of red wine and suffer
fewer heart attacks than the British or
Americans.
Conclusion: Eat & drink what you like. It's
speaking English that kills you.
Foundations of
Research

Limitations to empiricism
Why is it difficult for us to use empirical
evidence in our decision making?
1. Illusions
2. Confirmatory bias
“Mindless” or Naïve Empiricism can
reflect anti-scientific
bias
3. Emotional
salience
I won’t believe it unless I can directly see it myself…
4. Spurious correlations
5. Naïve empiricism
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Limits to empiricism: 5. Anti-science & naïve empiricism
‹#›
 The sun obviously goes around the earth; humans
must be the center of the universe.
 We had a record cold winter; global warming must
be a myth.
 The “big bang” makes no sense; we clearly are not
moving in space.
 We cannot “see” things evolving
 The world just looks “designed”
Evolution must be false
Foundations of
Research
5. Anti-science & naïve empiricism
Naïve Empiricism

Science asks “why?”, not simply “what?”
 Testing hypotheses and developing theories
is more important than raw data
 Empirical observations must be put into a
larger, theoretical context
 We cannot directly “see” even the most
basic of scientific principles or processs
(e.g., gravity…).
‹#›
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Theory / Rationalism
Foundations of
Research

Advantages / purpose?




Rationalism
Develop coherent principles or theories.
Articulate hypothetical constructs that
underlie behavior.
Make our conclusions correspond to other
knowledge
Disadvantages?


Do we show bias in the data we use to support
the theory?
Are our theories influenced by ideological bias
or authority-based belief systems?
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
Rationalism
EXAMPLE
Science has advanced via clear and strong
theories, that..

Organize our understanding of a field

Guide us toward new hypotheses and research
questions

Summarize empirical data
 The theory of evolution
 Social – cognitive
theories in psychology
 Basic learning theory
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
How do we “Know” something?
‹#›
Science: Integration of..
Rationalism

Theory

Hypothesis
Developing theories –
explanations of how or why
behavior works – is a core
purpose of research.
Empiricism
 Objective observation
 Control
 Operational definitions
 Replication
Empirical data helps us:
 describe the world
 test hypotheses &
develop theory.
Foundations of
Research
How do we know things, review 1
An important source of novel
hypotheses, theories or
scientific approaches
A = Authority
B = Intuition
C = Empiricism
D = Rationalism
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
How do we know things, review 2
Grounds knowledge in “real”
world, provides an important
hypothesis-testing
perspective
A = Authority
B = Intuition
C = Empiricism
D = Rationalism
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
How do we know things, review 3
Provides stable, core principles or
beliefs, but can limit empirical
evidence or alternative views
A = Authority
B = Intuition
C = Empiricism
D = Rationalism
‹#›
Foundations of
Research
How do we know things, review 4
Central purpose of science: coherent
explanation of “why” or “how”
nature works.
A = Authority
B = Intuition
C = Empiricism
D = Rationalism &
theory
‹#›
SUMMARY
Foundations of
Research
Sources of knowledge
 Authority
Stable beliefs. Biased / limiting?
 Intuition
Important source of ideas. Rational?
 Empiricism
Points us toward the Natural World.
 Rationalism
We strive to explain nature; why / how.
‹#›
 Multiple cognitive & emotional biases impede empiricism:
 Illusions
 Confirmatory bias
 Emotional salience
 Spurious correlations
 Naïve empiricism
Foundations of
Research

Glossary
‹#›
Theory
Proposition linking two or more (psychological) processes. Addresses “how” or “why” a
natural process works.
SUMMARY

Hypothesis
Specific, theory-based prediction about the effect of one variable on another, or of the
results of a measurement or observational study. Tests the theory.

Operational Definition
Specific procedures specifying how a variable will be modified or measured.

Quasi-Experiment
Experimental design, where researcher does not have complete control over the
Independent Variable, Dependent Variable, or Experimental Procedures.

Replication
Repeating a study in a different research setting and/or by using different research
methods.