Humanities Homework Help

Help me study for my Psychology class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.

Answer

1- There were a couple things wrong with the ghostbusters experiment. 1st and foremost its unrealistic. Using electric shock to get results is just ethically wrong. It also seemed as if the “volunteer” is getting paid to participate in the experiment. The researcher also acted in an unscientific manner by flirting with the female participant. If I were doing this study, my hypothesis would be “Positive Reinforcement causes an increase in the ability to use ESP to correctly identify shapes on cards.” My independent variable would be the positive reinforcement because it can be manipulated by the researcher. My dependent variable would be the ESP ability because it is what is being measured. The difference between correlational and experimental is that with correlation, a link exists between the two variables, i.e., when 1 variable increases, the other increases or decreases and vice versa. Whereas with experimental it draws more cause & effect conclusions because it uses random assignment. So, in order to make this study more experimental we would have to use random assignment to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity to be in both groups. Some of the ethical issues with this experiment is it causes pain/harm, and the researcher was also being deceptive. Some ways to solve ethical issues is to simply not conduct experiments that causes pain/discomfort, provide participants with the option of quitting in case of being uncomfortable, getting consent so that way participants know what they are getting into, debriefing participants after the experiments to give them peace of mind and to let them know that their participation was valued and making it a blind or double-blind experiment to reduce the risk of altering results based off intentional or unintentional bias.

.Answer

2- To begin, the video provided demonstrated several factors that were incorrect. First, throughout the ghostbuster’s video, the hypothesis was not stated, leaving the audience to wonder what was being tested. In addition, the study had no control group or clear dependent or independent variables which are tracked. Similarly, the doctor reveals the card to the male participant after each turn he answers incorrectly yet shocks him and does not show him the card when his answer was correct. On a similar note, the doctor tells the female subject all her answers are correct, even when that is false, and never shows her the card. To improve this study to meet scientific standards, there must first be a testable hypothesis. The study should also be free of bias, whether the participant is male or female to keep the results objective. Finally, to meet scientific standards, the study must demonstrate and define measurable independent and dependent variables. Secondly, if I was completing this study, I first would state my hypothesis as such, if awarded with positive reinforcement, individuals will be more likely to continue a study. In terms of defining my variables, I would say the amount of positive reinforcement given to participants would be the independent variable while tracking their choice to stay in the study as the dependent variable. Thirdly, to convert this from a correlational study to an experimental study a few factors must be adjusted and added. A correlational study is one that refers to a non-experimental research method used to study the relationship between two variables using statistical analysis. On the contrary, an experimental study is one that uses random assignment of participants into different groups, experimental or control, to determine the effect the independent variable has on the dependent variable. The control group in the experimental study would be the group of randomly assigned participants that do not receive the treatment, while the experimental group does. In terms of changing the study at hand to an experimental study, the doctor must first use random assignment and determine which group would be labeled experimental versus control. In addition, the doctor must define his hypothesis and determine his dependent and independent variable to measure the effect. Lastly, the video provided contained several ethical issues to be addressed. First, the doctor used electrical shock as a means of punishment when the participant answered “incorrectly”. Next, the doctor lied about both the response of the female participant each time to avoid shocking her, while when the male participant answered correctly, he was still shocked. To correct these ethical issues, I chose to alter the independent variable to positive reinforcement such as praise or reward, rather than use negative reinforcement as physical pain. To resolve the bias the doctor held toward the gender of the participants, it would be beneficial to use a set of rules that the researcher must follow as to when to award or not award the participant.